Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[_dhj_]

Most of my opinions were not for people to try to convince me to new perspectives; I've already made my own conclusion. So when I make a post, it's because I feel like it - that is just to piss you off.
Also, I don't see how my effort to open any discussions is useful in proving anything. Considering the amount of normal, mild or twisted stances people have in this thread relative to my own which could also be freely categorised.

I actually endorse this statement as the reason why most people post.

 

[T-mac01]

If pissing people off is why you post, then I suggest you do not post.

Speaking of your comment, you're a master compared to me. I try to piss people, you do it subconsciously.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

T-mac, you came here with your agenda, had nothing of any real substance to say, decided to just call people names and be a dick when confronted with any sort of opposing view - IMO you have nothing but this continuing rhetoric and just keep it up to assure yourself that you're right.

No need for that here.

 

[T-mac01]

You live here making sure your anti-god agenda keeps its place so that no one else gets to know the truth. If you mean helping people to seek the truth is being a dick. I would rather be a dick.
As if you have any real substances in your say. Again, needless to mention for the sharp minded.

Admit it, you're here for a complete cover up simply because you don't have the heart to face the truth. Oh, right, I forgot to mention. You know how you always use science as an excuse? How do you think those scientists came up with new ideas? Did they have a way to prove it when they first came up with those ideas? Yes, another rhetoric for your ass. Maybe the last one.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You live here making sure your anti-god agenda keeps its place so that no one else gets to know the truth.

Why would I have an anti-god agenda if I believed the truth was that God exists?

If you mean helping people to seek the truth is being a dick.

You haven't said much that I would call substantiative, you just babble on with rhetoric filled with insults.

As if you have any real substances in your say.

I do... you see, when I make my point, people understand it. You refuse to make your point and hide your motives, not willing to explain yourself or be tested.

Again, needless to mention for the sharp minded.

As usual, you boast about how intelligent you are as if you think the people that read this stuff are so stupid they'll give a shit how intelligent you say you are.

Admit it, you're here for a complete cover up simply because you don't have the heart to face the truth.

--' Don't have the heart? Where do you get this stupid, illogical rhetorical crap.

- I definately 'have the heart', if by that you mean my willingness/lack of it to accept the existance of God, if I believed it to be truth.

- I want God to exist.

Oh, right, I forgot to mention. You know how you always use science as an excuse?

What do you mean by 'use science as an excuse'... an excuse for what?

How do you think those scientists came up with new ideas?

Creativity, knowledge etc...

Did they have a way to prove it when they first came up with those ideas?

Probably not, but I wouldn't have believed them either until they had the proof for their ideas.

Yes, another rhetoric for your ass. Maybe the last one.

lol.

 

[T-mac01]

Why would I have an anti-god agenda if I believed the truth was that God exists?



You haven't said much that I would call substantiative, you just babble on with rhetoric filled with insults.



I do... you see, when I make my point, people understand it. You refuse to make your point and hide your motives, not willing to explain yourself or be tested.



As usual, you boast about how intelligent you are as if you think the people that read this stuff are so stupid they'll give a shit how intelligent you say you are.



--' Don't have the heart? Where do you get this stupid, illogical rhetorical crap.

- I definately 'have the heart', if by that you mean my willingness/lack of it to accept the existance of God, if I believed it to be truth.

- I want God to exist.



What do you mean by 'use science as an excuse'... an excuse for what?



Creativity, knowledge etc...



Probably not, but I wouldn't have believed them either until they had the proof for their ideas.



lol.

No you don't believe god exists. Don't freaking lying. Read your previous posts.

No, my initial posts were not filled with insults or anything that related to the topic.

Yes, if people understand you it's because you explain. I don't and I don't care. All I need to do is put the message across.

You've just insulted me countlessly from the past few threads.

And no no no, you don't have the heart. You're just saying that for an easy denial.

Creativity, knowledge....people who believe in God don't have knowledge and creativity?

An excuse for your stupid anti-god agenda. Science is a good argument for you to build that bridge.

 

[hurikai]

wow that was incredibly insulting/sterotyping/racist/politically incorrect etc.

but T-mac, you don't seem to be presenting any arguments... is there a rational basis for your beliefs? And please don't get all pissed off and diss me and stuff.
I'm starting to become aware of how entirely pointless this thread, and this whole argument, is. There's no point to it and it doesn't *prove* anything either way.

 

[hurikai]

oh awesome i got sigged

XD

In other words, you don't believe in 'God' as we've been discussing it so far, but simply assigned the name to something else. But that's not really a compromise or a mid-ground in any sense, it's just changing the argument to another topic completely. I could call the force of nature 'God', the force of death 'God' or the earth itself 'God', but I don't think it's really relevant to the argument... which is about whether or not a conscious, higher level entity which created the universe exists. All you've done is said that God doesn't exist. Correct me if I'm wrong =P

Again - you are in the minority and have failed to procure what I was attempting to say (ignore spelling errors its 2:30 AM):

"In other words, you don't believe in 'God' as we've been discussing it so far, but simply assigned the name to something else"

Yes, thats right - which exemplifies the smaller arguement. As Richard Rorty points out: There is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves. I also believe we cannot simply construct God as 'the' man nor can we escape the fact he means different things to different people. Basically I'm saying if there is a God - I'd like to know to what extent he is a dictator - if any - and to what extent he reflects our inner fears.

"But that's not really a compromise or a mid-ground in any sense, it's just changing the argument to another topic completely. I could call the force of nature 'God', the force of death 'God' or the earth itself 'God', but I don't think it's really relevant to the argument... ".

Yes, use your signifers all you want. And No - that's a flawed reading. Not only are you articulating the concept and therefore making correspond to an object - you appear to be saying that perspective is useless: "but I don't think it's really relevant to the argument... " Off course, considering the origins of God is important just as a narrative is to any story. And I don't mean to sound postmodern. I was simply suggesting seeing God through various prisms - In fact, your arguement in completley out of line monotheisms and indeed Blaise Pascal's Philosophy. I suggest you read my other blog in order to clarify what I'm saying: a mid ground would led us to the same dead end and the impact God has upon causation - nothing does not turn into something. (although hold your breath until 2008 when they answer the question whether there are alternate unvierses)

"That's not really an argument... all you're doing is making a generalisation and attacking his credibility while not addressing his point....but I don't think it's really relevant to the argument... which is about whether or not a conscious, higher level entity which created the universe exists"

Whoa, stop there. And your not making a generalisation? I am suggesting that either a) this entity is a barrier/mirror which reflects human fear and achievements, ad rem, in order to address 'whether or not a conscious, higher level entity' we must ask WHAT and WHY there IS God before we ask is there a god. Why God and not something else? And I mean that not only in the philologist term, but the capacity of this being to simply exist physically - human and spirtual cases. I have troubles understanding something that created all matter, could not create himself. Ergo, if humans didn't exist there would probably be no God - whether the word, idea or indeed concept.

"All you've done is said that God doesn't exist. Correct me if I'm wrong =P"

I sure will. I believe there are three pathways that should be examined:

1) God exists through us - both in worshipping terms and thought. OR

2) WE need to examine the historicity of God (suck on that phrase) as well as what and how this being came into existence. Simply saying there is no answer and therefore, thast why God is divine does not cut it for me.

3) Metaphysical and Postivist interaction; scientific and linguistic scruinty on the spirtual/physical.

But I guess we'll see if there is a God when we die (ha. Again thats presuming he does give us eternal life - as our social constructs have led us to believe).

Are you making a deliberate attempt to make your posts incomprehensible? I can see your point. The idea has occured to me before but not so in-depth or well-reflected upon. I suppose in a way it does add to the question. Thank you for edifying me.

What courses are you doing for the HSC this year?

 

[hurikai]

Oh, listen, kids this entire God debate is really a profound metaphor on the metaphysical nature of transcendental beings known as death.

God lives on. Why? Because humans do not.

Therefore, God, for me, is a parameter: He is a manifestation of our mind, a set of values based on consciousness, a rather etched, relativist (and cute) impulse. For we are "god". God is very much alive. We aim to be "gods", we are a humanity that "seeks out" God in our lives: we became Gods, we believe in Gods. God is a kind of neat teleological metaphor of what we can, cannot be, and want to do. God is wielded when we need him, and when he doesn't exist he IS there. God's a cloud that has a sense of humour.

So, where do I stand?

I know there is no GOD (seeing is believing right?), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in him.

For starters, I believe in myself, and I believe in you. For "we" are Gods.

Don't you agree?

Steven Spadijer

What I don't understand is, your first post appears to suggest that there simply is no God as a conscious higher level entity which created the universe, while your second post seems to suggest something completely different. A different perspective to the question, rather than making a conclusion either way. In fact, I can almost see your first post being summarised in -

1) God exists through us - both in worshipping terms and thought. OR

2) WE need to examine the historicity of God (suck on that phrase) as well as what and how this being came into existence. Simply saying there is no answer and therefore, thast why God is divine does not cut it for me.

3) Metaphysical and Postivist interaction; scientific and linguistic scruinty on the spirtual/physical.

 

[KFunk]

If God is the ground or source of being and not simply another being, even the highest or supreme being, then he does not exist in the sense in which things exist within the world. It may even be misleading to say, “God exists”, although this is the traditional way of speaking.

I think it's silly when people introduce propositions along the lines of 'god possesses properties which we do not understand and cannot possibly comprehend'. If someone wants to ascribe god an unconventional form of existence then they should define what this new form is. Rational argument becomes futile once god is seen to possess properties which are beyond comprehension or logic (I should also note that I am unsure how an individual comes to have knowledge of these incomprehensible qualities in the first place).

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

haha man this t-mac guy is making threats over ze internet because of his insecurities about his own religion. Wait, is this guy islamic? They are pretty known for being insecure with their own religion in that they act violently towards anyone that 'dares' insult their precious belief system.

That's cool though man, big man comes on ze intranet and starts a jihad, that's fine with me. just realise that we don't all look like this:

http://soiland.no/gallery/d/3773-2/andre_nerd.jpg

you're not the only big man here


p.s: and yeah retard, it's a fucking god damn insult.

when are you going to start using the word MUSLIM rather then islamic?

also just because there are people that believe in their religion [whatever his religion is + others] + talk about their religion...it doesnt mean that they are insecure about their religion..

 

[hiphophooray123]

when are you going to start using the word MUSLIM rather then islamic?

also just because there are people that believe in their religion [whatever his religion is + others] + talk about their religion...it doesnt mean that they are insecure about their religion..

when they become aggrevated because someone is making fun of their religion THEN THEY ARE FUCKING INSECURE. they could easily ignore it. It's just like when you look in a lebos direction, they get all agro and shout profanities like 'what the fuck you lookin at cunt omg *add spit*' they are insecure and looking at them seems to be a threat to their 'tough image.'

I don't blame muslims for being insecure though because they follow the ugliest most fucked up religion in history.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

when they become aggrevated because someone is making fun of their religion THEN THEY ARE FUCKING INSECURE.

no they aint insecure its just that when idiots like you try to mention things which are incorect about other religions [which it is obvious that you know nothing about] they come to the defence of their religion and try to explain what the facts are..

they could easily ignore it. It's just like when you look in a lebos direction, they get all agro and shout profanities like 'what the fuck you lookin at cunt omg *add spit*' they are insecure and looking at them seems to be a threat to their 'tough image.'

and yes they can easily ignore it, but when, you in particular keep going on and on about other religions then people start to get annoyed...

about the whole lebs thing.. how many lebs do you know? and you said "when you look in a lebos direction" just a fact not all lebs care about other people looking at them.. as for all the other crap about the lebs, i think the best solution is for you to go up to a leb and explain to them how you feel then see what their reaction is..

I don't blame muslims for being insecure though because they follow the ugliest most fucked up religion in history.

i dont understand the part about the "ugliest" religion? how can a religion be ugly?

also since you know nothing about islam then it would be best that you do shut up and stop making up crap

 

[hiphophooray123]

no fucking shittyislamqueen that is what you do. You try and be all nice and explain the 'facts' that's fair enough. You can't deny that other muslims get all agro and start making threats. Just like T-Mac has done, whatever religion he is he must be insecure about it if he resorts to making threats over the internet.

now, shittyislamqueen can you please never post again, you are so damn stupid that it gets annoying. So much fucking straw man that it isn't even funny.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

i swear to god, you dont know crap about any religion and you go on about that religion is a terrorist organisation and its a load of bull ..and a whole bunch more

also he is NOT insecure and i aint going to stop posting just coz you said so

 

[hiphophooray123]

if a guy paralized from the waist down insulted the way i walk, i wouldn't think anything of it.

same principle applies here, in case you were wondering, you represent the paraplegic.

 

[KFunk]

Poor form people.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

they could tease as much as they want... but when they keep refering to the religion even when the topic has nothing to do with it THEN it gets annoying

and i wasnt whinging

 

[ur_inner_child]

This thread's tangent is ridiculous.

I suggest everyone review the Forum Guidelines before continuing to post within this thread, particularly Section 1, 3 and 4.

Also, please go back on topic. Try to identify the difference between discussions of religious criticism between the existence of God.

You must regard everyone as equal. You must not disregard arguments of others simply because they are different. You enter these forums in a discussive mode, not to freely assert your ideas and insult those who critique it.

Your posts should not assume the knowledge of your 'opposition'. I have seen this from both sides of the argument in this thread. If your 'opponent' has no understanding of the topic, please inform them. By saying that they do not have knowledge and refusing to 'explain' the knowledge is victimising the person out of the debate. You have no right to do such a thing. If someone insults you, please report it, rather than retaliate. It will only continue to escalate, and this thread is an example of this.

You must back your statement up and be prepared to defend it when critiqued. It is not because you need to prove your argument to "convert" others but proof is the fundamental element of an effective argument. It is also the way in which these forums work. If you are not prepared for such a thing, this forum is not for you.

There have been good arguments in the past whereas both sides found common ground, or respected each other's justification. So it is not always about conversion or proving that you are correct. For more information on ways of arguing effectively view this thread on Politics and Arguments Guide.

If you see someone that creates a post that is content free, non-school like or abusive, please report in to Moderators. Every moderator will be able to see this post and deal with it accordingly. Also, you are able to appeal on a moderator's decisions this way.

Yes, unfortunatley this forum is without a main moderator, and for that reason I am reluctant to ban, although from here on, I will not hesitate to do so. Surely you are able to self-moderate and differentiate what is acceptable and what isn't.

Deletion of inappropriate posts in the last 2-3 pages will come shortly.

 

[dieburndie]

Alright, back on topic.
I hear all atheists are communists. Stalin was an atheist, so was Mao.
Discuss.