Is God real post your thoughts!

[Sly_Wizard]

Sly, they profess to *follow* the word of god, not to hear it personally.

 

 

 

...Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of prayer in most religions.

 

 

 

If god spoke to any given person directly that makes them a prophet. Certainly in Islam god speaking to you would be a great heresy as Muhammed is according the Islam the last prophet.

 

 

 

This is completely untrue. Have you ever heard of "duas" in Islam? Furthermore, God speaking to you does not make you a prophet. It's the fact that he both speaks to you and commands you to a certain action which would make you a prophet.

[venomai]

How does this invalidate the need for its creation? How can we with any certainty assert that non-corporeal entities need no creation if we cannot even grasp what they are, or whether they exist?

 

 

 

I totally swear we (Well, maybe it wasn't you. It was someone, though) had this argument before.

 

 

 

Speaking only of Christianity here, you don't get to redefine the Bible because you don't agree with it. The assumptions above make things unnecessarily complex, especially considering the fact the last two statements are only debated by the non-religious.

 

In answering my question, then, all we have is: "My religion told me so." :lol:

 

 

 

And I don't recall having this argument with you.

 

 

 

1.) God does indeed exist and talk to everyone, yet there are people who listen or

 

2.) God doesn't exist and a large number of the human population, both past and present, are crazy.

 

 

 

I'll go with option 1, especially considering 100% of the human population has never agreed on anything.

 

Hallucination and subsequent delusion is commonplace in human history. Take a look at early explanations of sleep paralysis, for example, which almost exclusively attributes the experience to demons and evil spirits visiting during the night. Although science now understands it to be a naturally occurring phenomenon, there are countless individuals who still report the event as paranormal.

 

 

 

Subjective experiences can be deceiving, especially when one is in an altered state of mind (e.g. from hypnagogia, LSD, meditation... all of which may elicit feelings of "hearing God" or the divine).

[Utopianflame]

Speaking to god, ie prayer isnt the same thing as god speaking back to you.

[Sly_Wizard]

That actually doesn't help your argument all that much. Using Abrahamic Gods does, but bringing in the polytheistic Hindus and such does not. They believe in vastly different gods, which are not the same. Are you asserting that Ra, Zeus, and Neptune are all the same God as yours?

 

 

 

It seems to me that the existence of so many vastly different gods helps to prove the point that humanity likes to make things up, not that everyone is talking to God.

 

 

 

Ah, it's the old "The plurality of religions means none of them are true!" argument, which is more or less asinine as it completely ignores-- Or, should I say, discounts-- The fact that all religions are merely a reflection of the ultimate form of truth. And, no, nowhere did I say that all gods were the same (I've no idea where you got that from). In this very thread, though, I did say that it's entirely possible that different people have different interpretations of the same message, much like the game telephone (I think it's on the last page. Not sure).

[NoMoreDead]

Why do some Christians think it's ok to pick and choose what actually happened and what is just a morally rich story out of the Bible? Why are some stories to be taken as fact, and some just for their moral value?

 

 

 

Because the Bible contradicts itself so many times that to save themselves (their religion) they bend their rules whenever they feel like it just to make things fit.

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol:

 

 

 

And too NoMoreDead:

 

 

 

It is quite obvious what are parables and what aren't. You don't have to be a Christian to figure it out.

 

 

 

NoMoreDead, I answered this already, Carbon Dating isn't 100% reliable, it is sometimes, but not always. Also, there is evidence to support it being under one million years.

 

 

 

Lastly, I answered the Epicurus question.

 

 

 

If carbon dating is even right .00000000000001% of the time, the basis of creation and the argument that the world was created 6000 years ago in 7 days crumbles entirely.

 

 

 

You have the answer to the Epicurus statement? Here's the question. Let's see your answer.

 

 

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

 

 

 

 

Problem: I didn't make an assertion. You were the ones who did, I asked you to back that statement up, you couldn't, still can't and are now trying to turn it around because you made an indefensible claim. Funny.

 

 

 

Actually, your belief made an assertion for you. As the person standing on the side of the fence with an illogical being ruling the world, YOU must provide evidence to back the the claim. God is an idea, and therefore must be proven with evidence. YOU made the assertion when you typed your first words professing your belief in a god.

 

 

 

You're up, junior.

[Sly_Wizard]

In answering my question, then, all we have is: "My religion told me so." :lol:

 

 

 

Even though you meant that in a whimsical but condescending way, sure.

 

 

 

And I don't recall having this argument with you.

 

 

 

Then it probably wasn't you.

 

 

 

Hallucination and subsequent delusion is commonplace in human history. Take a look at early explanations of sleep paralysis, for example, which almost exclusively attributes the experience to demons and evil spirits visiting during the night. Although science now understands it to be a naturally occurring phenomenon, there are countless individuals who still report the event as paranormal.

 

 

 

Subjective experiences can be deceiving, especially when one is in an altered state of mind (e.g. from hypnagogia, LSD, meditation... all of which may elicit feelings of "hearing God" or the divine).

 

 

 

The more people who have the same type of experiences, independent of one another, the less likely those experiences are to be products of mass hysteria/mass hallucination. Come on, now. You should know this.

 

 

 

Fixed: Glaring error.

[tryto]

That actually doesn't help your argument all that much. Using Abrahamic Gods does, but bringing in the polytheistic Hindus and such does not. They believe in vastly different gods, which are not the same. Are you asserting that Ra, Zeus, and Neptune are all the same God as yours?

 

 

 

It seems to me that the existence of so many vastly different gods helps to prove the point that humanity likes to make things up, not that everyone is talking to God.

 

 

 

Ah, it's the old "The plurality of religions means none of them are true!" argument, which is more or less asinine as it completely ignores-- Or, should I say, discounts-- The fact that all religions are merely a reflection of the ultimate form of truth. And, no, nowhere did I say that all gods were the same (I've no idea where you got that from). In this very thread, though, I did say that it's entirely possible that different people have different interpretations of the same message, much like the game telephone (I think it's on the last page. Not sure).

 

 

 

The Christian God repeatedly says that there is no God but him, frequently punished Israel for not following him exclusively, etc, etc.

 

 

 

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it proves humanity makes things up. Why are you not worshiping Ra right now? How do you know that Christianity is the archetypal religion?

 

 

 

I would completely disagree that that is a truth; more of a wish for Christianity to ignore the other religions which teach many of the same messages and hold many similar events.

[Sly_Wizard]

You have the answer to the Epicurus statement? Here's the question. Let's see your answer.

 

 

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

 

 

 

*Sigh*

 

 

 

I dislike this argument, only because people use it as an argument against God when, in fact, this is not what was intended. It's original intent was to show that the gods did not care about man's plights, therefore man should not concern himself with the gods. But, meh, whatever.

 

 

 

Actually, your belief made an assertion for you. As the person standing on the side of the fence with an illogical being ruling the world, YOU must provide evidence to back the the claim. God is an idea, and therefore must be proven with evidence. YOU made the assertion when you typed your first words professing your belief in a god.

 

 

 

First of all, stop misusing the word logic. I swear... People need to learn what the word means before throwing it around. Anywho, as to the bolded part, not terribly. At least, not to the extent which would pacify a non-believer. So I don't try, as I really could care less what you believe. My only interest is, as I've said a millions times before, is a defense of Christianity. Not a proof of Christian doctrine.

[Sly_Wizard]

The Christian God repeatedly says that there is no God but him, frequently punished Israel for not following him exclusively, etc, etc.

 

 

 

Yes, that's what he said. Now how does that go against what I wrote out in the post you quoted?

 

 

 

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it proves humanity makes things up. Why are you not worshiping Ra right now? How do you know that Christianity is the archetypal religion?

 

 

 

Yes, I know what you said. Generally, when one says that people like to make things up, they're insinuating that they're not true.

 

 

 

I would completely disagree that that is a truth; more of a wish for Christianity to ignore the other religions which teach many of the same messages and hold many similar events.

 

 

 

I'm dumb. You're gonna' have to rewrite this is a way I can understand <_<

[NoMoreDead]

You have the answer to the Epicurus statement? Here's the question. Let's see your answer.

 

 

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

 

 

 

*Sigh*

 

 

 

I dislike this argument, only because people use it as an argument against God when, in fact, this is not what was intended. It's original intent was to show that the gods did not care about man's plights, therefore man should not concern himself with the gods. But, meh, whatever.

 

 

 

This says to me: I have no answer for this, so I will circumvent it, much like I've been doing for the last 5 pages.

 

 

Actually, your belief made an assertion for you. As the person standing on the side of the fence with an illogical being ruling the world, YOU must provide evidence to back the the claim. God is an idea, and therefore must be proven with evidence. YOU made the assertion when you typed your first words professing your belief in a god.

 

 

 

First of all, stop misusing the word logic. I swear... People need to learn what the word means before throwing it around. Anywho, as to the bolded part, not terribly. At least, not to the extent which would pacify a non-believer. So I don't try, as I really could care less what you believe. My only interest is, as I've said a millions times before, is a defense of Christianity. Not a proof of Christian doctrine.

 

 

 

Again, you neglect to adress the issue at hand. Yes, you are standing on the side of the fence which makes an extraordinary claim. It is you who must prove what you're preaching.

[tryto]

The Christian God repeatedly says that there is no God but him, frequently punished Israel for not following him exclusively, etc, etc.

 

 

 

Yes, that's what he said. Now how does that go against what I wrote out in the post you quoted?

 

 

 

You said that believing a religion and praying is hearing the word of God. You, furthermore, cited ALL religions under that catagory, implying that all of them heard the word of God. Why would God speak and guide someone who is so obviously flouting one of his most important doctrines?

 

 

 

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it proves humanity makes things up. Why are you not worshiping Ra right now? How do you know that Christianity is the archetypal religion?

 

 

 

Yes, I know what you said. Generally, when one says that people like to make things up, they're insinuating that they're not true.

 

 

 

Answer the question. You say that all religions have a grain of truth. You are defending Christianity(seems to me you're playing a very involved game of Devil's Advocate from your posts, but meh), so I would assume that you believe that it holds the main truth or most truth of all the religions. How did you come to this conclusion.

 

 

 

I would completely disagree that that is a truth; more of a wish for Christianity to ignore the other religions which teach many of the same messages and hold many similar events.

 

 

 

I'm dumb. You're gonna' have to rewrite this is a way I can understand <_<

 

 

 

It's not a truth; it's BS. It's wishful thinking. It's an inadequate defence when someone says that some things in the Bible are unoriginal. I've seen it used often. It goes right against your bible. Clear enough for ya?

 

 

 

 

 

Sly: Atheists are not making the positive claim that God exists. They are making a negative claim that he does not. Theists are making the positive claim here, so they have the burden of proof. Absence of evidence, is nearly evidence of absence.

[venomai]

Hallucination and subsequent delusion is commonplace in human history. Take a look at early explanations of sleep paralysis, for example, which almost exclusively attributes the experience to demons and evil spirits visiting during the night. Although science now understands it to be a naturally occurring phenomenon, there are countless individuals who still report the event as paranormal.

 

 

 

Subjective experiences can be deceiving, especially when one is in an altered state of mind (e.g. from hypnagogia, LSD, meditation... all of which may elicit feelings of "hearing God" or the divine).

 

 

 

The more people who have the same type of experiences, independent of one another, the less likely those experiences are to be products of mass hysteria/mass hallucination. Come on, now. You should know this.

 

Not really. Take, for example, a higher rate of world LSD use and a subsequent increase in culture-independent experiences of "the walls are breathing." This does not decrease the likelihood of such an experience being a product of mass hallucination. If anything, such a scenario would strengthen the argument that "walls breathing" is a hallucination caused by the chemical and its effects on the brain.

 

 

 

Maybe the walls are breathing, though, and LSD just opens your mind to the reality?

[Sly_Wizard]

This says to me: I have no answer for this, so I will circumvent it, much like I've been doing for the last 5 pages.

 

 

 

Considering this is the first time I've seen anyone pose the argument. Ah well... I can answer it but you're not gonna' like the answer. Fair warning.

 

 

 

(1) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

 

(2) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

 

(3) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

 

(4) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God.

 

 

 

1 is fine. No arguments.

 

2 I don't agree with, but we'll get to that later.

 

Given the conclusion of 2, then 3 follows.

 

Given both 2 and 3, 4 follows.

 

 

 

Going back to #2, the problem is assuming that God brings forth evil for his own purpose (I can't remember the exact verse, but somewhere in the Bible as well as in the Quran), and that purpose is a good greater than what would have been achieved in the absence of evil, then God cannot be malevolent. Assuming this former to be true, then 4 can no longer be true as, if God is not malevolent for his non-actions, then there is no reason not to call Him God.

 

 

 

Again, you neglect to adress the issue at hand. Yes, you are standing on the side of the fence which makes an extraordinary claim. It is you who must prove what you're preaching.

 

 

 

Yes, assuming I actually care that you don't follow Christianity, which I don't. Henceforth the whole "defense" thing.

[tryto]

Going back to #2, the problem is assuming that God brings forth evil for his own purpose (I can't remember the exact verse, but somewhere in the Bible as well as in the Quran), and that purpose is a good greater than what would have been achieved in the absence of evil, then God cannot be malevolent. Assuming this former to be true, then 4 can no longer be true as, if God is not malevolent for his non-actions, then there is no reason not to call Him God.

 

 

 

No, it's assuming that allowance and apathy towards evil is malevolent. If you had the power to miraculously heal the sick at no cost to you, it would be evil not to do so. That is the argument.

 

Name the verse and the greater good, and your point may become valid.

[Sly_Wizard]

You said that believing a religion and praying is hearing the word of God. You, furthermore, cited ALL religions under that catagory, implying that all of them heard the word of God. Why would God speak and guide someone who is so obviously flouting one of his most important doctrines?

 

 

 

The underlined portion I never said. I even said earlier that's not what I said. Furthermore, nowhere did I say they all professed to hear the word of God. I said, and I quote (Page 98):

 

 

 

No, I said that there are more than just three religions in the world that profess who profess to hear the word of God/gods/goddesses etc.. There's Hinduism and some sects of Buddhism, for example (Yes, contrary to popular belief, some sects of Buddhism do worship a god).

 

 

 

Yes, I even left in the grammatical error.

 

 

 

Answer the question. You say that all religions have a grain of truth. You are defending Christianity(seems to me you're playing a very involved game of Devil's Advocate from your posts, but meh), so I would assume that you believe that it holds the main truth or most truth of all the religions. How did you come to this conclusion.

 

 

 

Oh, we can play this game, It's a game you're not going to win but, *shrugs*, we can play.

 

 

 

Because it holds the most internal consistence.

 

 

 

It's not a truth; it's BS. It's wishful thinking. It's an inadequate defence when someone says that some things in the Bible are unoriginal. I've seen it used often. It goes right against your bible. Clear enough for ya?

 

 

 

Ummm... No. Your argument is flawed. Both the Bible and many native American myths, for example, make reference to a flood which destroyed the world because God was unhappy with his creation (Man). Are you going to tell me that the ancient Hebrews stole that from the native Americans or vice versa? I doubt it. To say something is "unoriginal" is to claim that one group copied another. Simply because the same type of story appears in two different places does not mean that one was taken from the other.

 

 

 

Sly: Atheists are not making the positive claim that God exists. They are making a negative claim that he does not. Theists are making the positive claim here, so they have the burden of proof. Absence of evidence, is nearly evidence of absence.

 

 

 

Yes yes... It's the whole onus thing. But, yet again, you're assuming I actually care what you believe. Trust me, I don't.

[Sly_Wizard]

No, it's assuming that allowance and apathy towards evil is malevolent.

 

 

 

Well, then that's an even worse argument.

 

 

 

If you had the power to miraculously heal the sick at no cost to you, it would be evil not to do so. That is the argument.

 

 

 

Okay. Here's an scenario.

 

 

 

Let's assume we have Person A who is inflicted with a horrible disease he contracted of faults purely his own. Let's say he decides to make the best of his situation by going out and making sure that people don't suffer his same fate. In doing so, he prevents a hundred people from contracting the same disease as him. Now, let's assume that God steps in and heals him. Because he is healed, he doesn't feel the need to go out and make sure that other people didn't make the same mistakes as him, thus a hundred people end up contracting the same disease he had.

 

 

 

Which is the more preferable situation?

 

 

 

(Yes, this is very oversimplified but you get the gist.)

 

 

 

Name the verse and the greater good, and your point may become valid.

 

 

 

Yeah okay.

 

 

 

*Goes to look*

[Utopianflame]

You said that believing a religion and praying is hearing the word of God. You, furthermore, cited ALL religions under that catagory, implying that all of them heard the word of God. Why would God speak and guide someone who is so obviously flouting one of his most important doctrines?

 

 

 

The underlined portion I never said. I even said earlier that's not what I said. Furthermore, nowhere did I say they all professed to hear the word of God. I said, and I quote (Page 98):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utopianflame wrote: Sly, they profess to *follow* the word of god, not to hear it personally.

 

 

 

Sly Wizard wrote: ...Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of prayer in most religions.

 

 

 

Now by my (and apparently Tryto's as well) understanding that is saying that prayer is hearing the word of god personally.

[Sly_Wizard]

You said that believing a religion and praying is hearing the word of God. You, furthermore, cited ALL religions under that catagory, implying that all of them heard the word of God. Why would God speak and guide someone who is so obviously flouting one of his most important doctrines?

 

 

 

The underlined portion I never said. I even said earlier that's not what I said. Furthermore, nowhere did I say they all professed to hear the word of God. I said, and I quote (Page 98):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utopianflame wrote: Sly, they profess to *follow* the word of god, not to hear it personally.

 

 

 

Sly Wizard wrote: ...Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of prayer in most religions.

 

 

 

Now by my (and apparently Tryto's as well) understanding that is saying that prayer is hearing the word of god personally.

 

 

 

*Ahem*

 

 

 

I said that different people of different religions pray and claim to hear the word of God/gods/goddesses, not that they pray and claim to hear the word of God, making it seem as if all religions follow one God, which is what tryto was implying.

[tryto]

You said that believing a religion and praying is hearing the word of God. You, furthermore, cited ALL religions under that catagory, implying that all of them heard the word of God. Why would God speak and guide someone who is so obviously flouting one of his most important doctrines?

 

 

 

The underlined portion I never said. I even said earlier that's not what I said. Furthermore, nowhere did I say they all professed to hear the word of God. I said, and I quote (Page 98):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utopianflame wrote: Sly, they profess to *follow* the word of god, not to hear it personally.

 

 

 

Sly Wizard wrote: ...Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of prayer in most religions.

 

 

 

Now by my (and apparently Tryto's as well) understanding that is saying that prayer is hearing the word of god personally.

 

 

 

*Ahem*

 

 

 

I said that different people of different religions pray and claim to hear the word of God/gods/goddesses, not that they pray and claim to hear the word of God, making it seem as if all religions follow one God, which is what tryto was implying.

 

 

 

I was implying it because when ginger asked why the majority did not believe in the Christian God, you brought all religions into it, implying that all religions are spoken to by the same god and all carry a shred of truth.

 

 

 

You said:

 

In this very thread, though, I did say that it's entirely possible that different people have different interpretations of the same message, much like the game telephone (I think it's on the last page. Not sure).

 

This implies to me that all religions contain the same messages, albeit with different interpretations.

 

You're giving conflicting messages.

[Zierro]

Okay. Here's an scenario.

 

 

 

Let's assume we have Person A who is inflicted with a horrible disease he contracted of faults purely his own. Let's say he decides to make the best of his situation by going out and making sure that people don't suffer his same fate. In doing so, he prevents a hundred people from contracting the same disease as him. Now, let's assume that God steps in and heals him. Because he is healed, he doesn't feel the need to go out and make sure that other people didn't make the same mistakes as him, thus a hundred people end up contracting the same disease he had.

 

 

 

Which is the more preferable situation?

 

 

 

(Yes, this is very oversimplified but you get the gist.)

 

 

 

Or God could make the disease nonexistent in the first place which would ensure that 101 people were healthy. :thumbup: That sounds like the more preferable method of an all-loving good god.

[tryto]

Yes yes... It's the whole onus thing. But, yet again, you're assuming I actually care what you believe. Trust me, I don't.

 

 

 

Don't be an idiot. If you don't care what you're talking about, why should I debate with you?

[Sly_Wizard]

I was implying it because when ginger asked why the majority did not believe in the Christian God, you brought all religions into it, implying that all religions are spoken to by the same god and all carry a shred of truth.

 

 

 

You said:

 

In this very thread, though, I did say that it's entirely possible that different people have different interpretations of the same message, much like the game telephone (I think it's on the last page. Not sure).

 

 

 

This implies to me that all religions contain the same messages, albeit with different interpretations.

 

You're giving conflicting messages.

 

 

 

All religions carrying a shred of truth =/= All religions following the same God. I'm not even sure how you could get those two mixed up.

 

 

 

Yes yes... It's the whole onus thing. But, yet again, you're assuming I actually care what you believe. Trust me, I don't.

 

 

 

Don't be an idiot. If you don't care what you're talking about, why should I debate with you?

 

 

 

The title of the thread is "Is God real post your thoughts!", not "Why should I follow your religion?".

[Zierro]

The title of the thread is "Is God real post your thoughts!", not "Why should I follow your religion?".

 

 

 

The title of this forum is "Off-Topic".

[Sly_Wizard]

The title of the thread is "Is God real post your thoughts!", not "Why should I follow your religion?".

 

 

 

The title of this forum is "Off-Topic".

 

 

 

Really??? :shock:

[Lenticular_J]

Sly: Atheists are not making the positive claim that God exists. They are making a negative claim that he does not. Theists are making the positive claim here, so they have the burden of proof. Absence of evidence, is nearly evidence of absence.

 

I just wanted to say: We're both making a claim. If, for example, I tried to prove that the McDonald's company does not exist, would you not demand I make the burden of proof? You could theoretically go and find it - you know it exists. I would be saying it does not. McD-nostics would not have an opinion either way.

 

 

 

This public service announcement (The View from the Other Side) is brought to you by PBS.