Is God real post your thoughts!

[WinKYiZzL]

[stats][/stats]I beleive in god, but i don't think i need church or any of that kinda stuff. I'm gonna eventually read the bible and take information from it that i will find useful. Me and god have are own relationship and thats all i want

[mmmcannibalism]

Which goes back to what I am saying about God not existing in Hell. How can you know if someone has become remorseful if you have absolute zero contact with them?

 

 

 

Which means he is wantonly allowing people who have become remorseful to be burned in hell for all eternity.

 

 

 

Sorry to bring that back up, I havent been on for 24 hours.

[StrOwez]

 

Just remember, this is faith. This is what is believed. And sometimes the answer is "I don't know." As a matter of fact, that is what faith is; believing, not knowing. If you always knew everything, it wouldn't be faith. I don't think I have declared any of this to you that it WILL happen, but my faith believes it will. I have only told what is believed.

 

 

 

Why just believe something if you don't have any indication that it's true? What's the point besides a sense of emotional comfort and why don't you value the truth above all else?

 

 

 

 

 

When I profess that I believe in God, it means more to me than just saying I believe in Him. It's like I feel somewhere in my heart that it is true. That is faith. It's believing without seeing. I accept it. Nobody forced me to, I just feel that it is true of my own free will. May sound corny/crazy to someone who doesn't believe (sorry if I'm wrong in assuming you don't), but, that's the best I can explain it, I'm afraid. In essence, you feel it. You don't know it with the mind, you know it with the heart.

 

 

 

That's probably where a lot of the "brainwash" theories and such come in to play. Nobody said religion was easy. Let me tell you, it certainly is not. There are many questions, but God is the ultimate being. He cannot be comprehended completely. I believe He 1. exists and He 2. loves me.

 

 

 

Sorry if it's hard to understand, but, faith is hard.

 

 

 

It's ok, I'm not a Christian or a theist. To be honest I do find it hard to understand why people have faith; fundamentally I see it as irrational because we should only believe things if we have sufficient evidence of their truth. Following your heart is a rather romantic concept, but I can't give it any more credence than a Hollywood love story.

 

 

 

I have to say though, it's refreshing to see a Christian discuss his beliefs so candidly without feeling victimised because of the often heated nature of the debate. Good on you, seriously. :thumbup:

 

 

 

back in the days of medicine and scientific advances faith is all that people had.. Now some people are still lagging behind needing an emotional insurance for when they or their loved ones die.

[sphinxor86]

simple answer no.

 

 

 

I'm only willing to accept two *possible* pieces of evidence for the *possible* existence of god/designer of the Universe.

 

 

 

1) the existence of the Universe.

 

2) the fact that the moon exactly covers the same area of the sun in a total eclipse.

 

 

 

Now, 1) science cannot conclusively explain... yet. and 2) is amazingly unlikely to happen by chance, but it could still be chance. Winning the lottery is amazingly unlikely, but people still do.

[mmmcannibalism]

simple answer no.

 

 

 

I'm only willing to accept two *possible* pieces of evidence for the *possible* existence of god/designer of the Universe.

 

 

 

1) the existence of the Universe.

 

2) the fact that the moon exactly covers the same area of the sun in a total eclipse.

 

 

 

Now, 1) science cannot conclusively explain... yet. and 2) is amazingly unlikely to happen by chance, but it could still be chance. Winning the lottery is amazingly unlikely, but people still do.

 

 

 

As to 2, bear in mind that only happens at certain parts of the world; for instance much of north america experiences partial eclipses most of the time.

[sphinxor86]

 

As to 2, bear in mind that only happens at certain parts of the world; for instance much of north america experiences partial eclipses most of the time.

 

 

 

Partial eclipses happen only because sun earth and moon are slightly out of alignment at that spot on the Earth. North America may be getting partial, but Cuba may be getting total.

 

 

 

The fact remains that the relative sizes of Sun and Moon in the sky are identical or very very near-identical (withing a fraction of a percent). And that for this to happen accidentally is extremely unlikely.

 

 

 

This setup hasn't always been so (the moon is moving steadily further away due to tidal friction, at about the same rate your fingernails grow), so it may be that this particular conifiguration leads to a particularly stable balance of gravitational effects of sun and moon, allowing a more stable climate, allowing complex and sentient life to evolve.... pure speculation, but it would mean that being astounded by this would be inappropriate, seeing as this setup would have been necessary for us to even see it.

[mmmcannibalism]

 

As to 2, bear in mind that only happens at certain parts of the world; for instance much of north america experiences partial eclipses most of the time.

 

 

 

Partial eclipses happen only because sun earth and moon are slightly out of alignment at that spot on the Earth. North America may be getting partial, but Cuba may be getting total.

 

 

 

The fact remains that the relative sizes of Sun and Moon in the sky are identical or very very near-identical (withing a fraction of a percent). And that for this to happen accidentally is extremely unlikely.

 

 

 

This setup hasn't always been so (the moon is moving steadily further away due to tidal friction, at about the same rate your fingernails grow), so it may be that this particular conifiguration leads to a particularly stable balance of gravitational effects of sun and moon, allowing a more stable climate, allowing complex and sentient life to evolve.... pure speculation, but it would mean that being astounded by this would be inappropriate, seeing as this setup would have been necessary for us to even see it.

 

 

 

Oh, I see what you are saying now. That is an interesting thing to consider, one area I would look into is if larger tides would have made it harder for life to get onto land from the ocean. It is interesting, but Im going to have to side with being interested by this; it doesnt seem like something that is a create or destroy life thing(bear in mind the ratio is only important as the density where gravity is concerned).

[gummibear95]

i personaly beleive god is real,

 

 

 

lots of people think god isnt real, because science hasnt proven it,

 

but hey, science changes all the time, and is almost never constant,things get proved, and dissproved,

 

 

 

how can people say something isnt real, when they are basing it on something that is always correcting itself, or even contradicting itself sometimes.

 

 

 

 

 

also, i personaly, would rather have some hope, that there is something after this life, rather than non existance.

[mmmcannibalism]

 

As to 2, bear in mind that only happens at certain parts of the world; for instance much of north america experiences partial eclipses most of the time.

 

 

 

Partial eclipses happen only because sun earth and moon are slightly out of alignment at that spot on the Earth. North America may be getting partial, but Cuba may be getting total.

 

 

 

The fact remains that the relative sizes of Sun and Moon in the sky are identical or very very near-identical (withing a fraction of a percent). And that for this to happen accidentally is extremely unlikely.

 

 

 

This setup hasn't always been so (the moon is moving steadily further away due to tidal friction, at about the same rate your fingernails grow), so it may be that this particular conifiguration leads to a particularly stable balance of gravitational effects of sun and moon, allowing a more stable climate, allowing complex and sentient life to evolve.... pure speculation, but it would mean that being astounded by this would be inappropriate, seeing as this setup would have been necessary for us to even see it.

 

 

 

Oh, I see what you are saying now. That is an interesting thing to consider, one area I would look into is if larger tides would have made it harder for life to get onto land from the ocean. It is interesting, but Im going to have to side with being interested by this; it doesnt seem like something that is a create or destroy life thing(bear in mind the ratio is only important as the density where gravity is concerned).

 

Well, also the fact that we live on this planet.

 

 

 

I've always thought of it like this:

 

 

 

Out of 1 billion planets, only 1 could ever possibly support human life. That planet is Earth. So, wouldn't the same human life spring up on any planet that could support life? If you know what I'm saying, I realize that wasn't very clear... at all.

 

 

 

Your thinking of the anthropic principle I believe.

 

 

 

But on that line, the basic thing is that humans would appear on any planet identical to earth, and possibly some creatures very close to humans could show up if another planet is very similair to earth. Most likely, when we find life it will be from a different planet and probably be vastly different in structure.

[gummibear95]

there are many different bibles for different religeons, bible, for christianity, quaran for muslum, book of morman for mormans,

 

 

 

you cant group every religioun under one catagory

[gummibear95]

im not gonna try to prove, wich one is right, thats impossible, everyone is right to those who belive it

 

 

 

 

 

maybe no religion is true, but all have a part of the truthe in it

[sparze]

I believe

[sphinxor86]

 

I've always thought of it like this:

 

 

 

Out of 1 billion planets, only 1 could ever possibly support human life. That planet is Earth. So, wouldn't the same human life spring up on any planet that could support life? If you know what I'm saying, I realize that wasn't very clear... at all.

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is completely random, given the exact same starting conditions, and the exact same major events, there is absolutely no guarantee that we'd be here at all.

 

 

 

Remember that it is ultimately one freak individual that spawns a dynasty of species. The first creature to produce milk, (probably an echidna-like creature), would have been the first mammal, but if she had been eaten by a predator before producing offspring (random chance), no mammals would ever had existed. And even if at a later stage another similar animal had developed a milk production mutation (extremely unlikely) there's no guarantee that at that future time it would be an advantage.

[Alg]

 

I've always thought of it like this:

 

 

 

Out of 1 billion planets, only 1 could ever possibly support human life. That planet is Earth. So, wouldn't the same human life spring up on any planet that could support life? If you know what I'm saying, I realize that wasn't very clear... at all.

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is completely random, given the exact same starting conditions, and the exact same major events, there is absolutely no guarantee that we'd be here at all.

 

 

 

Remember that it is ultimately one freak individual that spawns a dynasty of species. The first creature to produce milk, (probably an echidna-like creature), would have been the first mammal, but if she had been eaten by a predator before producing offspring (random chance), no mammals would ever had existed. And even if at a later stage another similar animal had developed a milk production mutation (extremely unlikely) there's no guarantee that at that future time it would be an advantage.

 

You could almost use that to argue that there is some kind of creator. Something as unlikely as life forming, which apparently requires a very specific environment (Earth being in a nearly perfect position in our solar system, for one. Every other planet we have found has been a gas giant or outside that range, or both), then that life developing to this point (your example) is almost too unlikely, and yet here we are.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

 

I've always thought of it like this:

 

 

 

Out of 1 billion planets, only 1 could ever possibly support human life. That planet is Earth. So, wouldn't the same human life spring up on any planet that could support life? If you know what I'm saying, I realize that wasn't very clear... at all.

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is completely random, given the exact same starting conditions, and the exact same major events, there is absolutely no guarantee that we'd be here at all.

 

 

 

Remember that it is ultimately one freak individual that spawns a dynasty of species. The first creature to produce milk, (probably an echidna-like creature), would have been the first mammal, but if she had been eaten by a predator before producing offspring (random chance), no mammals would ever had existed. And even if at a later stage another similar animal had developed a milk production mutation (extremely unlikely) there's no guarantee that at that future time it would be an advantage.

 

You could almost use that to argue that there is some kind of creator. Something as unlikely as life forming, which apparently requires a very specific environment (Earth being in a nearly perfect position in our solar system, for one. Every other planet we have found has been a gas giant or outside that range, or both), then that life developing to this point (your example) is almost too unlikely, and yet here we are.

[/hide]

 

 

 

That's the classic watchmaker argument; the counterpoint is the anthropic principle or the blind watchmaker arguments.

 

 

 

While it is amazing that we got this "lucky" in existing, if we didnt exist we wouldnt be here going "wow why isn't there advanced life".

 

 

 

The more anti creator argument is the blind watchmaker, if some being created everything then why are there so many flaws in nature. Link, look under examples

[Wisp]

i personaly beleive god is real,

 

 

 

lots of people think god isnt real, because science hasnt proven it,

 

but hey, science changes all the time, and is almost never constant,things get proved, and dissproved,

 

 

 

how can people say something isnt real, when they are basing it on something that is always correcting itself, or even contradicting itself sometimes.

 

 

 

 

 

also, i personaly, would rather have some hope, that there is something after this life, rather than non existance.

 

Science isn't an entity. It's millions of people studying various things, so of course people are going to contradict eachother. Of course things change. Someone, through observation and study creates a theory, the theory is tested, and let's say it's proven true. But later, something previously unknown is discovered that makes the theory inaccurate, so of course it changes. But the basis of various sciences rarely change. It's not like newtons laws etc. are being disproved on a regular basis.

 

Religion, and yes, I'm grouping it together because if it's the same basic idea for pretty much every religion, doesn't change (atleast not often). Does that mean we should follow what some book says? Lord of the Rings has a hell of a lot less contradictions than christian scripture, and it's stayed the same since it's been written, does that mean I should be preparing myself for the final battle against sauron? No.

 

How can you say something exists, simply because a book says so. What if you were born in a different part of the world, for example into... A Muslim family in Qatar. You would be taught about that from an early age, and grow up believing in it. You wouldn't even consider believing in Christianity, it would be against God's will (Christianity and Islam actually have the same god, but different beliefs, but that's beside the point). You only believe in what religion you do because of where you live, and what family you're from.

 

Atheism is different, in that it's the belief that there is no god, and it instead relies on something can legitimately be prove; science.

 

 

 

Here's a challenge to any theists. Prove your religion is any more valid than another religion.

[mmmcannibalism]

Here's a challenge to any theists. Prove your religion is any more valid than another religion.

 

 

 

Can I use time as a god? I mean time created life, if nothing was moving then we wouldn't be living.

[Alg]

That's the classic watchmaker argument; the counterpoint is the anthropic principle or the blind watchmaker arguments.

 

 

 

While it is amazing that we got this "lucky" in existing, if we didnt exist we wouldnt be here going "wow why isn't there advanced life".

 

 

 

The more anti creator argument is the blind watchmaker, if some being created everything then why are there so many flaws in nature. Link, look under examples

 

Oh, never heard of that. Though I'm not trying to prove that brand of creationism, since that argument is used to disprove "a God that directly created all species of life", something that I don't believe happened to begin with. It's clear that a God is not omnibenevolent, at least, even the religious would agree (Citing punishment, I think?)

[sphinxor86]

I think the biggest flaw in most "Intelligent" Design arguments is time. If there is someone pulling the strings, guiding evolution to ultimately reach us.... why take 4.5 billion years to do it?!! It could be done so much faster.

[Zierro]

I think the biggest flaw in most "Intelligent" Design arguments is time. If there is someone pulling the strings, guiding evolution to ultimately reach us.... why take 4.5 billion years to do it?!! It could be done so much faster.

 

 

 

If we were made to be perfect right from the start then that leaves no room for progress. I think the concept of progress is a great thing. Take games for example. You start on level 1. They wouldn't nearly as fun if you were to start on level 99.

 

 

 

That was too cheesy of an example... Allow me to expand.

 

 

 

The existence of progress allows us to have a sense of achievement and allows us to be able to say, "Look how far we've come." We were pretty much nothing more than germs at one point, and we've evolved and evolved into something much more complex and advanced. For all we know, we still might be evolving. I find that exciting. I don't like the idea that "here" and what we have right know is the best - I like the idea that things always have room for improvement. I definitely wouldn't want to be born as an elderly man with a ton of experience and knowledge. I'd rather have the ability to start off fresh and explore new things and gain knowledge on my own instead of having it customary for me.

 

 

 

Atheism is different, in that it's the belief that there is no god, and it instead relies on something can legitimately be prove; science.

 

 

 

It's just as outlandish to say you can prove god doesn't exist as it is to say you can prove that he does.

[sphinxor86]

Science can no more prove the non-existence of God, than Religion can prove his existence.

 

 

 

The reason why many scientists reject the idea of god is simple: Occam's Razor

 

 

 

"All other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

 

 

 

God is horrendously complicated. It is far easier to have, or expect, that a simpler explanation exists or will come along.

 

 

 

Plus, *I* don't like the idea of someone pulling the strings on a whim. I am the only one who controls my own destiny.

[Zierro]

I am the only one who controls my own destiny.

 

 

 

If that were true, then how did you make that post? It's not like you created this forum and every profile and are communicating to yourself. Somebody made a post, and you responded to it, meaning others have affected your life.

[EdgedThesis]

Your consciousness and choice is given by a series of chemical responses to internal and external stimuli.

 

 

 

And on the quantum level, there is uncertainty of particle and wave behavior.

 

Things are everywhere and nowhere at once.

 

 

 

However these particles take up definite state when a conscious viewer observes them either directly or with a camera.

 

The uncertain states of the chemo-electrical reactions you call thoughts may very well be made certain by an outside, godlike being.

[warren211]

I think the biggest flaw in most "Intelligent" Design arguments is time. If there is someone pulling the strings, guiding evolution to ultimately reach us.... why take 4.5 billion years to do it?!! It could be done so much faster.

 

 

 

I think Zierro really nailed it well, but my thinking to sort of add to this response is that God lives in eternity. Time is irrelevant in eternity, everything happens at once rather than having a sequence. Of course I have no proof of this, it's just my way of thinking. So while God had everything happen at once, he also needed some way to chronologize (is that a word?) the events, perhaps as Zierro said to give humans a sense of progress at how far we've come, and all the more reason for us to praise Him for creating such a beautiful and complex history of the universe.

 

 

 

And besides, just because we don't have a 100% clear answer for God's motives, that doesn't mean intelligent design is flawed. Part of faith is attempting to believe God's motives are true rather than always trying to bring it in human terms.

[Satenza]

It is more impressive for a God to design the laws of nature, than to create nature itself.