There is a God and he hates American soccer. Think about it, after every major sporting event, the winner thanks God directly. He usually tops the list. God doesn't want American soccer to win the World Cup, so he interfered with things a bit. This also explains the numerous problems in the world. With God so busy fixing sporting events, who has time for world hunger? JMac
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist Good post and I think I agree with it. I can see how you were focused on a certain argument...
I think you missed my point. Even if they didn't discuss their faiths, all 4 would believe 100% that their way is the one and only true way, so at least 3 of them must therefore be wrong, but none of them would be able to accept that they actually could be one of those 3. Believing 100% is NOT the same as knowing. There's a scene in the film "The Life of Brian" where a crowd are chasing Brian as they (wrongly) believe him to me the messiah and his shoe falls off and he drops his gourd. The followers all start arguing about "we must gather shoes", "no we must all wear one shoe like him", "it's not a shoe, it's a sandal", "no it's a shoe", "we must follow the gourd" etc etc. That, quite frankly, is the history of religion summed up in 30 seconds. All of course topped off by the scene a bit later where a mass of people all say "yes, we are individuals. Yes, we must work it out for ourselves".
It's quite easy to prove that there is no God. No God as described in the bible that is. God is almighty, and he is good... right? Take a look at all the crap that happens on this planet. If God is almighty and in fact good... he would do something. So he might good, but definitely not almighty. Or he is almighty but he's just a rotten bastard! The way I see it, all gods are actually one. Satan. Satan who corrupts the peoples minds, dividing them, making them hate each other. Making them think that their faith is the only true faith. Get outta here with your religious crap.
OK, there is the Faith in God that he/she/it is out there. Well, where is he? Has anyone ever seen him or talked to him?
You seem to have assumed that I am athiest. I'm not. I'd say I'm undecided. There's too much conflicting information for me to feel confident either way and unlike some people (on both sides of this arguement) I don't feel I HAVE to decide either way. But what I am against is organised religion. Why do people feel need they have to confirm to one set or rules or beliefs? Why don't people stop pigeonholing themselves as being one religion or another and just decide for themselves what they believe and worship in the way they see fit? I find it strange to hear people saying "We believe this" or "we believe in doing that" - belief is personal, not collective. You may say that there are bits of your religion that you find difficult but you believe them because you have faith - but what you are actually saying in that case is "I don't actually believe this, but because I've been told it's true I have to believe it." That's a big contradiction. Why can't you just be happy in not believing that part of the religion. You might say that you can't pick and choose bits of religion - but why not? After all, the people who invented the religions made them up as they went along so what makes what somebody believed 2000 years ago more valid than what you believe today? In other words be an individual and work it out for yourself rather than letting other people tell you what to believe.
You're assuming that omnipotence means the ability to do anything at all, but it doesn't. Although it would seem to be a contradiction in terms, omnipotence is limited. The limit is the realm of the logically possible. In other words an omnipotent being can do anything that can be done, but that's all he can do. He can't draw a square circle, he can't create a married bachelor and he can't bring about a state of affairs in which he exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. So why isn't it logically possible for God to end evil? Because he can't do that and allow us to have free will. But someone on this thread has already shown that free will is inconsistent with divine interference, so how do I justify my claim? Well, free will is inconsistent with many types of interference, but that doesn't mean that all types are ruled out. If it did, wouldn't that rule out our existence at all? Isn't the first act of creating and continuing to sustain our existence a form of interference? If a concept as grandiose as omnipotence must be limited, surely something like free will can't be entirely open-ended. In fact, the very idea of free will requires interference in that it requires us as part of our nature to make choices. The interference is also limited in that we have choices to make rather than a proscribed route to blindly follow.
Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist Well, where are you? You list Chicago as your location, but I've never been there so I don't believe it exists. Yeah, I have friends who claim to have visited, but they could be lying so as far as I'm concerned Chicago doesn't exist and neither do you.
The thing that always trips me out is how people try to paint Christianity as a rigid set of rules. Christianity, if you really look at is about as free of rules as one could possibly imagine. Don't kill Don't steal Don't sleep with your neighbors wife etc. Pretty basic stuff, whether religious or not, you can't really argue that those are basic ideals that keep society (regardless of religion) flowing pretty smoothly. Jesus added to those ten: "Love the Lord with all you heart, soul, etc." "Love thy neighbor as thyself." (doesn't this one pretty well sum it all up.) Christianity isn't full of "eat this, don't eat that" kind of stipulations. Regarding this type of thing it was stated if its wrong for you, then its wrong for you, if its right, then its right. Don't get in each other's business on this kind of stuff. Not a lot of rules by my count, and those rules are pretty common sense. Seems to me that one of Jesus' major objectives was trying to get everyone to elevate themselves and chill out on getting down on everyone else (pharisees, etc.) There's an old Russian proverb concerning Christianity that sums it up pretty well: "Save yourself and a thousand around you will be saved." It is these snake handling, hatemongers that are messing up a beautiful thing. It is all too easy to pick on them as "what's wrong with Christianity."
What's hard to reconcile is that, there's no way to distinguish the validity of your views vs. the snakehandlers. They're internally consistent, too. Just a little bizarre. What if they're correct and they're the ones who will be rewarded with heaven? Personally, if heaven means spending eternity with those guys, I'll take my chances in hell.
First time I've quoted myself on BS, but this is the meat of what I was asking. Forget God for a moment.
If you are trying to make an assesment at random, I believe your statement is true, but if you are trying to assess particular interpretations of Christianity, then there are ways to distinguish the validity of varous views. Anyone, Christian or not can look at The Bible and "test" one group's views against anothers.
A minor correction: Jesus didn't add to the ten. He replaced them with his two. Those two succinctly coalesced all previous teachings. If you love God with all your heart you will do your best to be in communion with him. Since God is love, he wishes all humans to share in that love. To do that, you must love your neighbors as you love yourself. A very simple philosophy. Unfortunately, very hard for even the strongest human to follow. But because God is love, our failure to achieve communion with him (due to our failure at loving our fellow man) may not be held against us. We get points for trying. It is those who don't try and who purposely live their life to deny any communion with God who will have their wishes fulfilled in the afterlife: They will not be with God. What that is, I shudder to think.
I don't think that I should be punished as a human being because some dumbass decided to do things one way and it ************ed me over. It's the same way little kids in Africa shouldn't have to starve to death because they can't get food, thanks to someone else's economy. Edit because what I originally wrote sounded unintentionally rude. =)
> I wasn't aware that you suddenly became a > fundamentalist Christian that adheres to the > literal interpretation of the Bible. When arguing about the nature of God, we need to have a concrete description of his nature and actions. That is why I am arguing from the Bible. If I am arguing about the nature of Santa Clause, I will use a literal interpretation of books that purport to describe his nature. I can't argue against some new-age amorphous undefinable God, so I am not going to try. > I know it's a very difficult concept for alot of > people to understand, particularly non-believers, > agnostics, and athiests to grasp that the God of > the Old Testament wasn't a wrathful and > vengeful being waiting to whack the human race > at every middling sin. But then that would > actually take some time to read the Bible and > 95% of them can't be bothered to do that. Of course it is hard for us to understand, as when we read the Bible without a bias towards the God character, that is exactly what it looks like. I mean, when the Jews were wandering the desert and they started to complain about the lack of water and lousy food, is sending venomous snakes and killing a bunch of them really the way to answer their complaints? > But in actuality, if you really study the Old > Testament with the premise of an open mind that > people were the one's that rejected God and not > the other way around, you might just learn that > the whole book is about God providing everything > necessary for Man to live and constantly seeking > a relationship with Man. It wasn't with Man, it was with a certain small group of men. The Canaanites were creations of God, and they didn't get the benefits of a relationship.
Re: Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist Have you seen pictures of Chicago? Have you seen pictures of God? I've seen the pictures of what people believe God would look like if he existed.
> Although it would seem to be a contradiction in > terms, omnipotence is limited. The limit is the > realm of the logically possible. This isn't clear. There are people that believe that God can change what is logical as well. > So why isn't it logically possible for God to end > evil? Because he can't do that and allow us to > have free will. But there is lots of evil in the world that has no influence on whether we have free will or not. Why is there tooth decay? If we never had cavities, would we be any less free? What about dandruff? Or just about any decease? What about lightning or earthquakes or tornadoes or hurricanes? Does my living in California mean that I am sinning, because I am avoiding God's wish that I be tested by snow? And if there is some reason for these events, why is it that we now have cures for diseases, and fillings for teeth, and stronger houses that can stand up to many earthquakes and storms? Are not we going against God's will in those cases? Isn't that the worst sin possible? And even man-made evil is not evenly distributed. If you were a 6 year old Jewish kid in Poland in 1941, you get a lot more evil headed in your direction than people living in California in 2002. And the argument that that kid gets a free ticket to heaven doesn't make sense. Why does he get that luck and I, born in an almost secular society and well educated, don't? Why didn't God run me over by a paint truck before I turned 18, and went from being a ardent believer to an atheist?
People say God exists because they believe he exists, for no other reason than someone else told them to believe that. I believe that God doesn't exist, therefore to me, by the same argument, he doesn't. However, I also believe in free expression of ideas and I know it's been posted earlier, but if believing in God helps you feel better about yourself, believe away!
The problem with the concept of a personal, concretized, anthropomorphical "Big Daddy In The Sky" (and that is exactly how 99% - or more- of monotheists view God/Jehovah/Allah/whatever) who is not only omnisicient and omnipotent but also somehow all good, not evil, felt the need to create the universe (including, if you believe the Bible, a Hell for folks who don't believe in Him), is bound by time to act within human history (ie., send His Son - who is really Him, btw, but then not really Him, go figure), etc. etc. etc., is that you run into far too many self-contradictions to be plausible. Now if some people need a Cosmic Big Daddy looking over their shoulder to make them behave themselves or to justify their not being complete selfish ass-holes and can't be decent civilized human beings without such a belief, so be it. I personally think these people would be better off for a variety of reasons with a vulgar, "popular" (ie, dirt simple and concretized) form of Buddhism such as the Pure Land Sect. Either that or they should be Amish since the Amish, at least, are strict pacifists and therefore unlikely to start crusades or go on jihads or turn Lancaster County, Pennsylvania into the Middle East. Say what you want about Gautama Siddhartha but at least when he was asked about the possibility of a personal God, he had the brains to aply Ockham's Razor and simply say "I don't know and it's not really important because even if there is He has His own concerns and all we can do is live here and now the best way we can." Oh, and by definition "God" cannot be proven or disproven in a scientific manner unless and until He decides to manifest Himself to our physical senses in a manner viewable to the great majority of humanity rather than hiding away in His heaven where we can't see, hear or touch Him (I'd rather not smell or taste Him, thanks). End of story.
So wait. I'm an All-powerful, All-knowing, Perfect being of Love and General Goodness. What the hell do I care if a few yokel tribesmen don't accept me? You'd hope that as a divine Abslute Being, I would be a bit more mature than to throw a cosmic hissy fit and start wholesale slaying and instructing My minions to "rip the babies from their mothers' wombs" and all that (so much for God being anti-abortion). I mean, I'm just an ordinary human dude and even if you tell me I suck I'm not likely to go off and kill you, your whole family, and everyone (including the unborn) in Oklahoma because I feel hurt and peeved. I expect my deities to be at least as mature as I am if not considerably more so.
But I am just as mature as god is. I demand constant attention, I hate everyone who disagrees with me, I like torturing people AND animals and one day hope to kill everyone I dislike.
Sorry, but if we were as mature as the God presented to us in the Bible, the entire world would be the Middle East. It would be nice to know what Jesus really said about God but what we have as the New Testament is so hopelessly garbled and self-contradictory that nobody can agree on "what Jesus really said" and, unless some new definitive source (preferably autograpghed by Jesus his very own Self) is unearthed in the Middle East somewhere, I doubt we ever will.
> You're arguing from selected sections. Err.. How else am I supposed to do it? > The Caananites rejected the realtionship with > God and turned away from him to religions that > included human sacrifce. Nice bunch of guys. > They seem to be right with the program, didn't > they? The Jews also did human sacrifice. And what they did to the Canaanites wan't the act of nice guys either. Wouldn't a God that was wise and good and powerful beyond all men be able to create a better solution?