Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Cookie182]

But then, where would the fun be if there was? Youre referring to something that can satisfy men's intelligence in a material way. Faith is not this thing.

Faith 4 fun?

 

[Iron]

Cheap, yes, but I'm in a very stiring mood.

Ok, turning seriousness on...

I am actually astounded though that people are that inspired by this book. I'm concurrently reading the Quran, it's far more passionate and tenacious.

Like we get into some hefty debate here, philosophically etc

But after reading it, I'm kind of shocked at the lack of any real philosophical depth. No important questions of morality are answered or justified. The meaning of life is avoided, not tackled. Even Jesus shows signs of contradictory behaviour and if not all else, weakness at times. I see something far less then the "perfection" proclaimed. I feel like a critic coming down hard on one of those built up films, which collapsed halfway. Sorry, but all thats offered is a primitive vision of love that is quickly diluted by contradictions and bigotry. What is so special, really?

I find more love in a Disney classic or a Jane Austin novel...just saying.

Are you wanting me to justify the literary merits of the bible?

It's not 'once upon a time', it's your life. Read the exodus as your wilderness years right now; read doubting Thomas, seeking to be satisfied by an earthly reason, as you yourself; read Mary as the symbol of human heroism, the ultimate moral being that we can hope to be
and so forth

 

[Iron]

Faith 4 fun?

I mean, free will should be taken seriously. There needs to be a real moral choice behind faith, rather than a cold and detached acceptance of 'facts'. It's highly personal and will always be so

 

[SylviaB]

There needs to be a real moral choice behind faith,

Believing in god is not about morailty.

 

[Riet]

Faith alone is not enough.

 

[Iron]

Faith alone is not enough.

I agree, but neither is bread.

Fides et Ratio: Faith and Reason
That's what being a Catholic is all about!

 

[Riet]

Ignoring facts to maintain a faith in something is not reasonable though.

 

[Iron]

Ignoring facts to maintain a faith in something is not reasonable though.

What facts are we ignoring? Youve only referred to instances which, to you, make faith less likely, but not impossible

 

[Cookie182]

Are you wanting me to justify the literary merits of the bible?

It's not 'once upon a time', it's your life. Read the exodus as your wilderness years right now, read doubting Thomas, seeking to be satisfied by an earthly reason, as you yourself
and so forth

Although I'm about to eat dinner, I'm not seeking to write replies with depth. But tbh I guess for me I can write the Bible off as a bad film. With any cult movie, you'll have its loyal fans and you'll have the cold, hard critics.

Exactly what I'm asking. Why are you convinced this book "is the One"? Surely greater moral questions are tackled by our revered enlightement thinkers, Greek + Indian philosophers, our beloved poets and literature classics? Most of the NT seems repetitive- the story of Jesus is skimmed in such depth that nothing is even explained, nor given careful thought. After Matthew, its then repeated, with variations, but nothing revolutionary. Look at it from this point- the biggest moral guide it has for some1 is "to follow exactly what it says". To guard against sin (whatever that is, its not defined) profess your love in Jesus, act good to others (with strict, bigotted conditions) and you'll join your eternal dictator. Oh my friend, this life is much more beautiful than that!

It kinda does read like a "Once upon a time" (I got it here right now). Matthew 1-16, basically going over Jesus "supposed" lineage (cause they could do genetic testing in those days lol), 18 hits up the setting (fails to define a "Holly Spirit"), 19-25 reads like a child's bedtime story, about an angel visiting Joseph, gonna have a son etc [very very similar to fables of ancient egypt eg surrounding Hatshepsut's divine birth, recorded on her temple walls]

...

...

all this time is magically skipped, the reader is lost basically, need I continue

 

[Riet]

What facts are we ignoring? Youve only referred to instances which, to you, make faith less likely, but not impossible

Dinosaurs.

 

[Iron]

Lol, Riet, no doubt your referring to the ill-founded beliefs of some Christians, but you cant paint us all with the same brush broseph - tempting tho it is

 

[illa mc]

What facts are we ignoring? Youve only referred to instances which, to you, make faith less likely, but not impossible

you have margarat thatcher as your display picture.. neck yourself

 

[Iron]

Although I'm about to eat dinner, I'm not seeking to write replies with depth. But tbh I guess for me I can write the Bible off as a bad film. With any cult movie, you'll have its loyal fans and you'll have the cold, hard critics.

Exactly what I'm asking. Why are you convinced this book "is the One"? Surely greater moral questions are tackled by our revered enlightement thinkers, Greek + Indian philosophers, our beloved poets and literature classics? Most of the NT seems repetitive- the story of Jesus is skimmed in such depth that nothing is even explained, nor given careful thought. After Matthew, its then repeated, with variations, but nothing revolutionary. Look at it from this point- the biggest moral guide it has for some1 is "to follow exactly what it says". To guard against sin (whatever that is, its not defined) profess your love in Jesus, act good to others (with strict, bigotted conditions) and you'll join your eternal dictator. Oh my friend, this life is much more beautiful than that!

It kinda does read like a "Once upon a time" (I got it here right now). Matthew 1-16, basically going over Jesus "supposed" lineage (cause they could do genetic testing in those days lol), 18 hits up the setting (fails to define a "Holly Spirit"), 19-25 reads like a child's bedtime story, about an angel visiting Joseph, gonna have a son etc [very very similar to fables of ancient egypt eg surrounding Hatshepsut's divine birth, recorded on her temple walls]

...

...

all this time is magically skipped, the reader is lost basically, need I continue

These are poor criticisms made out of ignorance and a mindset predetermined to find fault and be hardened. There's nothing sacred about the book itself - it's the meaning it contains; the meaning it has to humanity. Ofc it's totally meaningless if you read it without sympathy to its Truths

 

[Cookie182]

I mean, free will should be taken seriously. There needs to be a real moral choice behind faith, rather than a cold and detached acceptance of 'facts'. It's highly personal and will always be so

Actually, logically the very nature of believing in Christianity is not compatible with "choice". When you de-rail the universiality of science and replace it with a transcendal being, it creates universal subjectivity as you are not aware of whether God could unknowingly manipulate the law of non-contradiction making it false, such that a proposition and its negation can exist at the same time. In fact, everything is relative and subject to God's will (which no1 knows). Principles and absolutes like the nature of "free will" and choice become bullocks under the theistic framework- the very nature of choice is eroded by definition. this can actually be extended to the absolute truth you think you hold in regard to the question: Does God exist?

Only in a self-contained universe, with the universiality of reason can we have true choice and absolutes. Morality does not exist at all under a religious framework.

 

[Riet]

So you believe in evolution? Why create a god if there is no necessity for one?

 

[Cookie182]

These are poor criticisms made out of ignorance and a mindset predetermined to find fault and be hardened. There's nothing sacred about the book itself - it's the meaning it contains; the meaning it has to humanity. Ofc it's totally meaningless if you read it without sympathy to its Truths

It is a philosophy Iron- and the nature of philosophy is that it needs to be critically analysed. What critic would I be if I brought sympathy and hence bias into the mix.

Also, thank you, it is very much just a book. With a mixed message of love, hate and superstition. These messages have been written down since humanity's inception. Since the only primary message you want to emphasise is love; I'm arguing that there are greater books out there then the Bible with this message and don't see what is at all special about it.

 

[Iron]

Actually, logically the very nature of believing in Christianity is not compatible with "choice". When you de-rail the universiality of science and replace it with a transcendal being, it creates universal subjectivity as you are not aware of whether God could unknowingly manipulate the law of contradiction, so that true premises coexist with false negations. In fact, everything is relative and subject to God's will (which no1 knows). Principles and absolutes like the nature of "free will" and choice become bullocks under the theistic framework- the very nature of choice is eroded by definition. this can actually be extended to the absolute truth you think you hold in regard to the question: Does God exist?

Only in a self-contained universe, with the universiality of reason can we have true choice and absolutes. Morality does not exist at all under a religious framework.

We dont 'derail the universiality of science': we insist that this very universiality is from and point to transcendence; the ultimate truth and universiality which is the natural end of science. It is His order and one in which he is extremely reluctant to interfere with, lest our free will be compromised

 

[illa mc]

What sort of pommy nationalist fuckwit would have maggy as their display picture.. coincidently they happen to be a christian too, what is the world coming to...

 

[Iron]

So you believe in evolution? Why create a god if there is no necessity for one?

Yes.

Because man cant live by bread alone. The meaning you think explains everything physically still leaves a gaping black hole when it comes to our emotions and deepest spiritual urges to be sanctified and fulfilled

 

[Cookie182]

We dont 'derail the universiality of science': we insist that this very universiality is from and point to transcendence; the ultimate truth and universiality which is the natural end of science. It is His order and one in which he is extremely reluctant to interfere with, lest our free will be compromised

You can't "know" anything though under this framework.

This explains it better then me

"The Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

Are you smarter then Prof. Martin?