Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[dark_angel]

Why do you think this. The only time we cannot trust our sense if our sense organs are damage. Sensations are force on to us, we have no control so therefore we see objectivity.

i think u should watch the matrix again

 

[Bone577]

i think u should watch the matrix again

I think you should rather say, we cannot DEFINITELY trust our senses in EVERY case. Not that we cannot trust out senses in general.

 

[Jezzabelle]

I believe God exists.
I believe He is Lord of my life
I also believe He is the saviour of my life.

I have experienced the peace, love, fulfillment and joy from living a life that has God at the centre. It is a life of purpose and satisfaction.

I believe I am not an accident, i believe I was created, and planned out by God and for his pleasure. I believe he delights in me and is preparing a glorious eternity for me in heaven.

"One day every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord, one day every knee will bow. Still the greatest treasure remains for those, who gladly choose Him now..."

God Bless xoxo

 

[Bone577]

I believe God exists.
I believe He is Lord of my life
I also believe He is the saviour of my life.

I have experienced the peace, love, fulfillment and joy from living a life that has God at the centre. It is a life of purpose and satisfaction.

I believe I am not an accident, i believe I was created, and planned out by God and for his pleasure. I believe he delights in me and is preparing a glorious eternity for me in heaven.

"One day every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord, one day every knee will bow. Still the greatest treasure remains for those, who gladly choose Him now..."

God Bless xoxo

Indeed, "believe" is all you can do in that regard.

You can't exactly prove or substantiate that god exists or that he is the lord or that he is the "saviour" of your life. Or can you?

 

[superbird]

Indeed, "believe" is all you can do in that regard.

You can't exactly prove or substantiate that god exists or that he is the lord or that he is the "saviour" of your life. Or can you?

No shit. Nobody living today has actually seen God. I think the answer is pretty obvious - nobody knows. You either choose to believe or don't. I believe, I am happy and to me that's all that matters

 

[Jezzabelle]

Indeed, "believe" is all you can do in that regard.

You can't exactly prove or substantiate that god exists or that he is the lord or that he is the "saviour" of your life. Or can you?

and no one can prove that God doesnt exist.

an atheist puts just as much faith in there being no God as i do in there being one.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No they don't...
They're seeing that everything makes logical sense without a god, no theists have presented a logical reason for how there could be a god other than that they just believe.

Atheists are basing their beliefs on the fact that there is no evidence of a god what so ever, theists are basing their beliefs on faith... ie, their belief is that they believe because they believe.

 

[Jezzabelle]

No they don't...
They're seeing that everything makes logical sense without a god, no theists have presented a logical reason for how there could be a god other than that they just believe.

Atheists are basing their beliefs on the fact that there is no evidence of a god what so ever, theists are basing their beliefs on faith... ie, their belief is that they believe because they believe.

to say with confidence that God does not exist you would have to know with certainty everything about the universe, how it was created, how it is sustained to show that there is no God. But if you did have all that knowledge and undertsanding. by definition, you would be God.

I trust creation. atheists trust evolution to support their believes. neither of these can be proven. so atheists have no facts to base their believes on. evolution is not fact.

I think absurdist theatre clearly relates how chaotic and illogical life is without God.

Without God everything is meaningless

I believe because i have seen lives be changed by them putting God as the King of their life and not taking the crown for themselves. I believe because I have seen my life changed because of the teachings in the Bible that are an instruction by our Creator of how best to live. I believe because I have breath in my lungs, because i open my eyes to the evidence of creation and because i have experienced God presence and power in my life

 

[Bone577]

As Not-So-Bright said.

We choose not to believe in things that we have absolutely no reason to believe in. And while this doesn't disprove god, I will remind you guys that the burden of proof is on YOU.


Example, I tell you there is an invisible cookie on the table, you can't sense it in any way. Then you say "why would i believe there is a cookie?" i say to you "have faith".
We can quite readily say there is absolutely no reason to believe the cookie is there, however if i then ask you to PROVE to me the cookie is not there, how would you go about it?
You could say "I can't see it"
Then i could say "It is invisible!"
You say "I can't smell it"
I say "It has no scent"
etc

Would you say it is logical, or even reasonable to believe in the cookie? Of course not... that would be baseless and irrational.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No, just like to say with confidence that 'That plane will fly', i don't need to know everything about physics and how the plane works.

Again, evolution is a FACT, all scientists agree that evolution occurs.... the THEORY of evolution is the theory.. Just as FLIGHT is a FACT and the theory of flight is the theory...
ALL scientists agree that micro evolution occurs....

Why is there meaning if there is god? What is the meaning of your life?
There is meaning WITHOUT god, read my thing about building a snowman..

 

[Bone577]

to say with confidence that God does not exist you would have to know with certainty everything about the universe, how it was created, how it is sustained to show that there is no God. But if you did have all that knowledge and undertsanding. by definition, you would be God.

Yes, but refer above. It is irrational to believe in something when there is no logical reason to.

I would like to see someone even point to something that may indirectly lead to them believing in god.

I trust creation. atheists trust evolution to support their believes. neither of these can be proven. so atheists have no facts to base their believes on. evolution is not fact.

Evolution has base to it though. It is based on logic. Evidence, hence has credibility. Creation has no such evidence involved.

If you were to take a pick of the two based on credibility, evidence and logic it is no secret what everyone would pick.

[/QUOTE]I think absurdist theatre clearly relates how chaotic and illogical life is without God.

Without God everything is meaningless[/QUOTE]

I can cope with a meaningless life.

 

[Jezzabelle]

Yes, but refer above. It is irrational to believe in something when there is no logical reason to.

I would like to see someone even point to something that may indirectly lead to them believing in god.




Evolution has base to it though. It is based on logic. Evidence, hence has credibility. Creation has no such evidence involved.

If you were to take a pick of the two based on credibility, evidence and logic it is no secret what everyone would pick.

I think absurdist theatre clearly relates how chaotic and illogical life is without God.

Without God everything is meaningless[/QUOTE]

I can cope with a meaningless life.[/QUOTE]

Again, evolution is a FACT, all scientists agree that evolution occurs.... the THEORY of evolution is the theory.. Just as FLIGHT is a FACT and the theory of flight is the theory...
ALL scientists agree that micro evolution occurs....

evolution is NOT fact. and not every scientist believes in it, i have read essays from over 50 professors in all areas of science who have firm facts and evidence for creation. Their are MASSIVE holes in the theory of evolution. Dont blindly accept it. Go out and read the thousands of scientists who work under creation and have found many flaws in evolution theory. I did. I havent grown up in a christian home. I came to my believes on my own, and i read lots from both sides. and in the end. God was revealed to be truth.

stop saying evolution is logical when it is based on random chance

In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

if you are serious about this, and arent just wanting to be argumentative:

http://www.godandscience.org/

 

[Bone577]

evolution is NOT fact. and not every scientist believes in it, i have read essays from over 50 professors in all areas of science who have firm facts and evidence for creation. Their are MASSIVE holes in the theory of evolution. Dont blindly accept it. Go out and read the thousands of scientists who work under creation and have found many flaws in evolution theory. I did. I havent grown up in a christian home. I came to my believes on my own, and i read lots from both sides. and in the end. God was revealed to be truth.

stop saying evolution is logical when it is based on random chance

In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

Evolution is the most substantial and explanatory THEORY yet. The fact that it can even have holes is proof of its superiority over creationism, which does not even constitute a theory considering its lack of scientific base.


A beggining, what beggining, expand, substantiate.

 

[Jezzabelle]

Evolution is the most substantial and explanatory THEORY yet. The fact that it can even have holes is proof of its superiority over creationism, which does not even constitute a theory considering its lack of scientific base.


A beggining, what beggining, expand, substantiate.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html

dont assume creation is not scientific please

 

[Armani]

I believe God exists.
I believe He is Lord of my life
I also believe He is the saviour of my life.

I have experienced the peace, love, fulfillment and joy from living a life that has God at the centre. It is a life of purpose and satisfaction.

I believe I am not an accident, i believe I was created, and planned out by God and for his pleasure. I believe he delights in me and is preparing a glorious eternity for me in heaven.

"One day every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord, one day every knee will bow. Still the greatest treasure remains for those, who gladly choose Him now..."

God Bless xoxo

I find that is somewhat highly disturbing when I read through that, much like trying to sing a hymn at a christian service praising the Lord. I don't see how you could use the term 'Love' when describing your commitment to God.

 

[Jezzabelle]

I find that is somewhat highly disturbing when I read through that, much like trying to sing a hymn at a christian service praising the Lord. I don't see how you could use the term 'Love' when describing your commitment to God.

maybe thats because i have a different definition of love then to what you have friend

 

[Armani]

maybe thats because i have a different definition of love then what you do friend

Is not love characterised by the highest order of affection towards another being?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Why do creationists get so upset about evolution?

Instead of trying to prove Creationism, trying to gather all their theories into one harmonious whole that may be presented to the scientific community, creationists seem to spend an awful lot of time attacking the theory of evolution. They use the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, saying that either the theory of evolution is true, or Biblical Creationism is true. Disproving one automatically proves the other. Because they cannot prove that Creationism is true, they try to indirectly prove it by attempting to show that evolution is false. One of the (many) major problems with this approach is that it is not a dichotomy at all. To say that the only possibly alternative to naturalistic evolution is Christian Creationism is bogus in the extreme. For example, you can have:

* Theistic evolution, where God uses evolution as a tool for creation.
* Last-Thursday-ism, where God created the universe last Thursday, but made creationists believe He created it six thousand years ago with Adam and Eve. All our memories are forgeries implanted by God a few days ago. After all, He doth worketh in mysterious ways...
* The Creation myths of a thousand other religions, each of which is a valid supernatural alternative to the supernatural Christian Creation myth. Why choose one over any of the others?

Ruling out evolution therefore does not rule in Biblical Creationism.

In a way, there is nothing wrong with people attacking the theory of evolution, and I am happy to encourage it. Science thrives on skeptical inquiry into new ideas. If not, it would never advance. When new theories are presented, scientists fall on them like a pack of ravenous hyenas, looking for weak spots and problems until the solid bones of the theory are laid bare (hmmm... time to brush up on my analogies, I think). Scientists are encouraged to look for problems with long-standing theories. This applies to evolution just as much as it applies to quantum theory, and evolution and all it's predictions should be, and are, tested on a daily basis. Unfortunately, most people who attack the theory of evolution (i.e. say that evolution simply does not happen) have an incomplete understanding of what the theory actually is, and end up criticising a wildly distorted view of the subject.

Creationists rarely seem to attack evolution from a scientific angle, relying instead on emotive pleas to a scientifically ignorant audience. They say that evolution is the only alternative to Biblical Creationism, and this is why they attack it so much (another tactic is to say that the theory of evolution is the cause of all our social problems, and only immoral people subscribe to it).

It seems to me that one of the real driving forces behind the way creationists think is all to do with Jesus (and of course the belief that the Bible is one hundred percent literal truth). Jesus is supposed to be the Saviour of humanity. Saving us from what? From Original Sin. Where does Original Sin come from? From Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, to truly believe that Christ is our Saviour, you need to also believe in Original Sin, the Garden of Eden, the Fall and pretty much the rest of Genesis. This is the root of the problem. If all creatures, humans included, were not Created (as it says in Genesis), but rather evolved over billions of years (as all available evidence suggests), then the Garden of Eden story is nothing more than... well, a story. In which case there is NO Original Sin, and Jesus' death has nothing to do with Original Sin.

There is then a direct conflict between evolution and the very basis of (fundamentalist) Christianity itself.

A second aspect of this is the idea that Jesus is Perfect. Jesus cannot lie. It is simply not possible, as far as the creationists are concerned, because he is perfect in every way, including morally. In Luke 17:26-27, Jesus refers to Noah and the Flood. Jesus said it, therefore it is simply true (if you accept the Bible as 100% literal truth, which many fundamentalists do), regardless of any evidence against it and lack of evidence for it.
I came across this on a message board recently :

HOWEVER, apparently, Jesus Christ KNEW the account to be true and related it to His Second Advent when speaking about the exact time of His return.

CONCLUSION: According to the Word of God: THERE WAS A FLOOD!

To the author of that, little more evidence was required. If the flood did not occur, exactly as stated in the Bible, then Jesus would be a liar (or at least mistaken) and that is utterly unacceptable to the creationist mind. If Jesus had said "Bananas are blue, highly intelligent and eat fish." then your can bet your boots someone from the ICR would be trying to prove it.

Basically, the Creationists think that if you accept evolution, then you cannot accept Jesus-As-Saviour. This is utterly unthinkable to a Christian Fundamentalist, therefore evolution MUST be false, no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. If they were to admit that evolution is true, they would be denying the sacrifice (and perfection) of Christ.

Robert G. Ingersoll put it very clearly:
"If the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man; consequently, we know, if the sacred volume be true, just how long man has lived and labored and suffered on this earth.
The church cannot and dare not give up the account of the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, and of Eve from the rib of the man. The church cannot give up the story of the Garden of Eden -- the serpent -- the fall and the expulsion; these must be defended because they are vital. Without these absurdities, the system known as Christianity cannot exist. Without the fall, the atonement is a non sequitur. Facts bearing upon these questions were discovered and discussed by the greatest and most thoughtful of men. Lamarek, Humboldt, Haeckel, and above all, Darwin, not only asserted, but demonstrated, that man is not a special creation. If anything can be established by observation, by reason, then the fact has been established that man is related to all life below him -- that he has been slowly produced through countless years -- that the story of Eden is a childish myth -- that the fall of man is an infinite absurdity."
THE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH ROBERT, G. INGERSOLL, 1888

They believe in the Bible first, and the real world second. If the real world doesn't fall in line with the Bible then reality is wrong, as the Bible can only be right.Creationism has everything to do with religion, and little or nothing to do with science.

 

[Jezzabelle]

Is not love characterised by the highest order of affection towards another being?

my definition is :
1 Corinthians 13:4 - 8

" 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. "

if you think you know about love, and are capable of this love, replace your name with the word "love" in those descriptions. I can guarantee you fall short. I think God fits this description of love tho

 

[Bone577]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html

dont assume creation is not scientific please

Creationism is not scientific.

You are pointing me to a site that treats the bible as purely an analogy.

So rather than going by what the Bible actually sais, they read into things to adapt it to what science has already proven. For example, they adapted it to fit into the non geo-centric model, fit in with the Big Bang Theory and such.

There are some things that must be taken literaly though, you cannot claim analogy on everything that is deemed ludicrous in contemporary society... for example, care to explain Luke 22:36, Deuteronomy 13:8, Exodus 20:23-25, Deuteronomy 20:16, Matthew 10:34, Numbers 31:17-18?