Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[dslme]

I find it hard to see how anyone would believe some magical fairy created the universe and some guy called jesus, claiming to be the son of god or something like that did all these magical tricks.

The bible is not a textbook. It's not historically accurate, it was never intended to be and should not be viewed in this way.

It's all lies used as a mean to control man. Wake up to yourself.

/rant

 

[mirakon]

I find it hard to see how anyone would believe some magical fairy created the universe and some guy called jesus, claiming to be the son of god or something like that did all these magical tricks.

The bible is not a textbook. It's not historically accurate, it was never intended to be and should not be viewed in this way.

It's all lies used as a mean to control man. Wake up to yourself.

/rant

Has it occured to you that when we are discussing God we are not necessarily discussing a biblical or abrahamic God at all? Please broaden your thinking.

 

[Scorch]

Perhaps, however you seem to have missed the central point of his argument. The materialism of science and logic, and their universal truth, seem to be taken axiomatically as irrefutable and fact.

Science is based on observation and therefore is 'flawed' in the sense that it cannot deal with immaterial concepts. Logic is 'flawed' as it is based on the manipulation of semantics. Logic is taken as truth because it aids us with progress, the only reason why it exists, and hence is warped into what we wish to perceive so that the world makes sense. The foundation of logic and reason as undeniable should be questioned just as we question that of God's 'irrefutible' truth.

Scince is limited as I said before, based on the observations of human beings. That which we cannot immediately perceive doesn't imply it doesn't exist, merely that it is not a physical reality. How are we to know that there is no immaterialism beyond physical reality. The concept that there is only matter, that immaterialism is nothing was philosophically obliterated in ages past.

Yes, and I agree with you; yet what exactly are you trying to say?

I agree if you're trying to make the point that a more vague, deist God is a less intellectual repulsive concept. The fact is that while science and human observation has not yet moved into an era where we can tackle the question, necessarily, of the existence of a God, it has most certainly moved into one where it can quite simply and easily say that the Bible and Quran and every religious ideology of God are based on fallacies.

 

[zaxmacks]

This is such a useless argument. No one can prove God exists, and no one can prove God doesn't exist. Why bother trying.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

This is such a useless argument. No one can prove God exists, and no one can prove God doesn't exist. Why bother trying.

This thread is exactly where I left it about four months ago...

Only a few hundred pages longer.

 

[mirakon]

Yes, and I agree with you; yet what exactly are you trying to say?

I agree if you're trying to make the point that a more vague, deist God is a less intellectual repulsive concept. The fact is that while science and human observation has not yet moved into an era where we can tackle the question, necessarily, of the existence of a God, it has most certainly moved into one where it can quite simply and easily say that the Bible and Quran and every religious ideology of God are based on fallacies.

What I'm trying to say is that logic is not necessarily a constant that is a universal truth. Just becuase something is illogical, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist as logic itself is flawed. We cannot automatically assume that logic is the be all and end all of all things.

 

[trickx]

What I'm trying to say is that logic is not necessarily a constant that is a universal truth. Just becuase something is illogical, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist as logic itself is flawed. We cannot automatically assume that logic is the be all and end all of all things.

What did Kant conclude? If we cannot rely on logic and reason then what can we use?

You can add any metaphysics as you want, it cannot be proved and it cannot be known. Metaphysics is essentially redundant.

 

[mirakon]

What did Kant conclude? If we cannot rely on logic and reason then what can we use?

You can add any metaphysics as you want, it cannot be proved and it cannot be known. Metaphysics is essentially redundant.

You can't really prove anything in this world. Everything that has been 'proved' is based purely on observation and theoretically is based on axioms that we created for the purpose of such logic to exist in the first place.

Just because something has not been proven yet, it doesn't mean it can't be proven. There is every reason for metaphysics to exist so we assume it exists. If reason is flawed, then there must be something else, metaphysics, that should explain everything else.

 

[Titburger]

You can't really prove anything in this world. Everything that has been 'proved' is based purely on observation and theoretically is based on axioms that we created for the purpose of such logic to exist in the first place.

Just because something has not been proven yet, it doesn't mean it can't be proven. There is every reason for metaphysics to exist so we assume it exists. If reason is flawed, then there must be something else, metaphysics, that should explain everything else.

So what is your position regarding the whole god thing? Because you seem to do a good job of asserting that nothing actually exists and we can't trust anything in regards to science and logic. I really don't see what point you are trying to prove

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

So what is your position regarding the whole god thing? Because you seem to do a good job of asserting that nothing actually exists and we can't trust anything in regards to science and logic. I really don't see what point you are trying to prove

he's a DEIST!

 

[Karlmarx]

Re: 回复: Re: 回复: Re: Does God exist?

I'm being 100% serious. I just believe that there is a FSM. I know it and have faith in it. Why can't you accept that?

Faith is not an argument. It's blind acceptance of something. You don't know it. You can't know it. And you can't, because you cant provide any other reason besides, 'I know it.' Well, if you know it, prove it. I can't accept it, because your just going around in circles.


'I know that Aliens exist'. 'Oh you do! Prove it!' 'I know it, because i have faith.' 'Prove it!' 'I know that they do, because i have faith that they do' ....


See where you are going with this? It's unreasonable to say that you know something without any kind of reasonable argument or fact to back yourself up. Get some proof, then come back to the thread. And no, creationism, the first cause argument and your bible, or whatever, is not proof.


kthx.


'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature'

 

[aimee935]

Guys its a little thing called faith. You cant see love but you know its there. We cant see god but those of us with faith no he's there. The bible is proof. You believe a textbook because it has "qualified" people telling you that its right. You would believe someone just because they have a certificate to their name but you wont believe the bible?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Guys its a little thing called faith. You cant see love but you know its there. We cant see god but those of us with faith no he's there. The bible is proof. You believe a textbook because it has "qualified" people telling you that its right. You would believe someone just because they have a certificate to their name but you wont believe the bible?

oh not another one! -exasperate sigh-

please, for the love of god, DON'T compare the bible to a textbook.

a textbook is scientific. people perform experiments, it is replicated and then it is published in a textbook and widely accepted by all.

if it could be proven (and widely accepted) that moses could telekintically suspend the red sea in midair again, then i could confidently call my self a christian.

 

[Karlmarx]

Guys its a little thing called faith. You cant see love but you know its there. We cant see god but those of us with faith no he's there. The bible is proof. You believe a textbook because it has "qualified" people telling you that its right. You would believe someone just because they have a certificate to their name but you wont believe the bible?

Faith is NOT an argument. Its the most ignorant, blind form of acceptance ever. You clearly cant see the issue between 'faith' in a textbook, and one that dictates the lives of 2billion+ christians. The problem with your faith argument is, faith is not something that should relate to god.

Because, a textbook, written by an author, has facts that relate to it. These facts, can be researched, and checked upon. The difference between that, and The bible, is that the bible was written 2000 years ago, with the direct intention to convey a specific message about GOD, OUR CREATOR. With no facts, and no evidence, it becomes hard to have faith in a book that wants to dictate my life.

More then that, there is no logic or reason in faith. Even with supposed, 'historical, unbiblical writings', they themselves can be seen as biased, and written for a specific purpose. Your idea of faith is a logical fallacy. Sorry.

 

[Karlmarx]

The bible is proof.

Give me some proof that god exists, straight from the bible, THAT YOU CAN BACK UP, with reason, logic, fact and authenticity. Then, ill consider your point. fool.

 

[mirakon]

So what is your position regarding the whole god thing? Because you seem to do a good job of asserting that nothing actually exists and we can't trust anything in regards to science and logic. I really don't see what point you are trying to prove

Oh no, I believe things exist, what I'm saying is that there are things beyond science and logic, materialism exists, but so does immaterialism, which is beyond science and logic. Just becuase we cannot perceive something with science and logic, it does not mean we cannot conceive it with the immaterial mind.

 

[Karlmarx]

Oh no, I believe things exist, what I'm saying is that there are things beyond science and logic, materialism exists, but so does immaterialism, which is beyond science and logic. Just becuase we cannot perceive something with science and logic, it does not mean we cannot conceive it with the immaterial mind.

like dreams.


Like flying elephants.

 

[Karlmarx]

Oh no, I believe things exist, what I'm saying is that there are things beyond science and logic, materialism exists, but so does immaterialism, which is beyond science and logic. Just becuase we cannot perceive something with science and logic, it does not mean we cannot conceive it with the immaterial mind.

youve got a decent point.

 

[aimee935]

Those experiemnts are only widely accepted because people believe that those scientistis are qualified. What if they're not sure experiments can make things happen which are predicted but the explaination of how that happened is made up a theory. Clearly you dont believe in love or happiness or sadness or any emotion for that matter. You CAN'T give proof of those feelings you just have to take peoples word for it. Read the bible, pray a few times, see gods work and then get back to me.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

like dreams.


Like flying elephants.

you know... invisible flying elephants could exist.