Do YOU believe in God?

[bearofthunder]

Precisely? :)

 

 

 

I was showing you that I don't need to be omniscient (see very bottom) to know what non-existence feels like.

 

 

 

To reiterate my previous post, non-existence feels like nothing because it's non-existence.

 

 

 

your original post:

 

For one thing, you are not omniscient.

[HugATree]

 

HugATree, you still don't get it? I'm talking the absolute nature of truth. You say that science is your basis for truth. I have already systematically proven why that is flawed. When you say "science can talk about the universe," I agree.

 

 

I get it, but I'm not decieving myself into thinking I have absolute truth. I understand truth has yet to be fully discovered; I'm simply choosing a more reliable method.

 

 

 

But we're dealing with morality not the universe.

 

Then why bring up science? Sounds like you're now critizing science for not doing what you want it to do.

[HugATree]

 

I'm sorry, bear, but I simply do not understand how you can say that statement. For one thing, you are not omniscient. You CAN say, "based on my life so far, I would choose the latter." However, you don't know what it's like to not exist.

 

So you've always existed? I know what its like not to exist, and so does alot of other people.

[my_pet_worm]

 

 

 

Science proves the bible

 

 

 

THE BIBLE (2,000ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ3,000 years ago)/Science then/science now.

 

 

 

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)./The earth was a flat disk./The earth is a sphere.

 

 

 

Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22)./Only 1,100 stars./Innumerable stars.

 

 

 

Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)./Earth sat on a large animal./Free float of earth in space.

 

 

Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews11:3)./Science was ignorant on the subject./Creation made of invisible elements (atoms).

 

 

 

Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41)./All stars were the same./Each star is different.

 

 

 

Light moves (Job 38:19,20)./Light was fixed in place./Light moves.

 

 

 

Air has weight (Job 28:25)./Air was weightless./Air has weight.

 

 

 

Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6)./Winds blew straight./Winds blow in cyclones.

 

 

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11)./Sick people must be bled./Blood is the source of life and health.

 

 

 

Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)./The ocean floor was flat./Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.

 

 

 

Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16)./Ocean fed only by rivers and rain./Ocean contains springs.

 

 

 

When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13)./Hands washed in still water./When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.

 

 

 

 

 

Behind every Art, there is what? An Artist.

 

 

 

Behind every building there is what? A builder

 

 

 

So then, logicly, what is behind a creation?

 

 

 

 

 

My word, try argueing against any part of it you want to be wrong.

[Mercifull]

Thats a stupid picture made by ill educated creationists. You wont find a single Evolutionary scientist or zoologist that will say modern humans evolved from monkeys thats absurd.

 

 

 

Heres a little link for those that say that the eye is too complex to have evolved by accident and therefor must be a creation of a god...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwVGUTX ... tion%20eye

[my_pet_worm]

You wont find a single Evolutionary scientist or zoologist that will say modern humans evolved from monkeys thats absurd.

 

 

 

I know 2....and I only know 2 all up.

[Faux]

 

So you've always existed? I know what its like not to exist, and so does alot of other people.

 

 

 

Not really. I'm not even sure how it's like when I'm sleeping.

[Mercifull]

You wont find a single Evolutionary scientist or zoologist that will say modern humans evolved from monkeys thats absurd.

 

 

 

I know 2....and I only know 2 all up.

Name them, and quote the source where they claim this. You are probably misreading them or mistaken by their words.

[my_pet_worm]

Name them, and quote the source where they claim this. You are probably misreading them or mistaken by their words.

 

 

 

The people I know won't be know by you. Here are some other sources...

 

 

 

http://www.historychannel.com/apetoman/

 

 

 

A whole program devoted to it

 

 

 

"It was in 1856 that the first bones of an extinct human ancestor were encountered, unearthed by a crew of unskilled laborers digging for limestone in Western Europe. The find would be known as Neanderthal Man and sparked a desire in the scientific community to know more about the origins of humanity. Around the same time, Charles Darwin's work The Origin of Species first broached the subject of evolution, and by the end of the nineteenth century, it had become the hottest topic of the age."

 

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology ... links.html

 

 

 

-Go through the top ten links, it has some famous recognisable names.

 

 

 

 

 

I searched "How evolution works" onto Google, none I saw said other than the 'Ape to man' theory.

[Mercifull]

What they are actually referring to is a common ancestor. But i guess its an easy mistake to make if you are used to just beliving what you are told in church. Lucy is the name given to an example specimen of a possible common ancestor, Lucy was NOT a monkey.

[insane]

I was showing you that I don't need to be omniscient (see very bottom) to know what non-existence feels like.

 

 

 

Eh, this may sound stupid, but you've never been to hell. Fire and brimstone are symbolic words used in Revelation - hell is basically the lack of God's presence, which is exactly what you want if you choose "not God" in your life here on Earth.

 

 

 

Why should God send you to heaven, if you don't want to believe in Him or be in His presence? It seems that by sending you to hell, God is giving you exactly what you want.

[Evilperson]

My pet worm:

 

 

 

If what your saying is true, please provide the quotes from the bible. Also if thats what science was thoght to be, why didn't religion correct them? I would like to point out you are viewing science in a negative light. Half of those "previous science" views aren't even true. When did science say the earth sat on an animal? It is a common misconception that people thought the earth was flat around 1600. People knew that the earth was round. There were astrologists that figured many of those things out to be false in the renaissonce (sp).

 

 

 

 

 

My source: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:vbVYf0PewMQJ:www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm+myth:+people+thinking+the+earth+was+flat&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

[jak722]

Wow... 50 pages now. :?

[____]

My word, try argueing against any part of it you want to be wrong.

Shame many of them are so borderline and so vague that it's possible to twist the reasoning around to apparently say something they don't.

 

 

 

Isaiah 40:22 is one that is always misread. It says the earth is a CIRCLE.

 

And had Isaiah meant ball / sphere, would've used the word 'dur' as was used previously in other verses.

 

 

 

 

 

And there are numerous claims in the bible that the earth has corners, edges foundations, etc.

 

Not the properties of a spherical earth is it?

[HugATree]

 

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)./The earth was a flat disk./The earth is a sphere.

 

 

Isaiah translates to circle. When did science ever say it was flat?

 

 

 

 

Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)./Earth sat on a large animal./Free float of earth in space.

 

 

 

Still wrong, its called gravity. When did science ever say it was an animal?

 

 

 

Behind every Art, there is what? An Artist.

 

 

 

Behind every building there is what? A builder

 

 

 

So then, logicly, what is behind a creation?

 

 

Its your fictional creation story calling it a "creation".

[HugATree]

 

And there are numerous claims in the bible that the earth has corners, edges foundations, etc.

 

Not the properties of a spherical earth is it?

 

The earth apparently doesn't move either.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

We're talking about the basis for truth. I agree completely with your statements, but when SCIENCE is your basis for truth, then you run into trouble. Your interpretation of truth should not keep changing because then your PERCEPTIONS of truth, as you said, keep changing resulting in different APPLICATIONS of the unchanging truth.

 

 

 

I agree, for you can't force your belief on others. But I WILL say that parents play a vital role in setting the foundation for morality to their children. Mostly through their actions as compared to their words, though.

 

 

 

That's more of utilitarianism than of a straight morality.

 

 

 

Pardon me, but why would you say they "know" that good and evil and souls don't exist. Or that they even come from the brain. Because you're an atheist (or perhaps agnostic), that is your only option, but you can't prove your viewpoint. Because a soul is spiritual, you can't prove it with scientific instruments, as Ghost has already pointed out.

 

 

 

Your last sentence hinges upon your previous sentence.

 

 

 

Why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t our interpretations of truth change as our perception of truth changes? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a part of growing up and getting older and wiser. Things that we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see have no real effect or relevance to us; we need to view the effect of a phenomenon in order to see and understand it. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong for using science as a basis for truth? Every relevant scenario in which we consider true or false is within the scientific realm and inquiry. The ultimate goal of science is to know the truth, all the truth that is knowable and relevant.

 

 

 

Words, actions same thing; words are just an example of the many social interactions between generations.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâUtilitarianismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as you call my argument is an ethical method; ethics is just another name for morality (ethics is the study of right and wrong), what part of that statement is not a moral judgement and rationalisation?

 

 

 

You can be agnostic and still believe in a god, there are many more options being agnostic over being a theist. You can believe in anything you want so long as you understand that anything supernatural is unknowable and/or has no relevance to us.

 

 

 

Why would the soul be spiritual if everyone has a soul? There are many people out there that donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t practice a religion; this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t suddenly make them soulless or evil. It canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be shown with scientific instruments because it simply doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist. Souls existed in a time when we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand what the brain was capable of doing (and we are only just starting to work that out). ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like claiming evolution isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t perfect because of the fossil record; however that kind of argument is irrelevant because we discovered genes/DNA which proves beyond doubt that evolution is real.

 

 

 

The problem with believing in Souls and God created morality is coming up with an explanation on how the soul/morality interacts with us without becoming real and scientific. It violates the definition of a natural phenomenon; if it is observable (it interacts with us, leaves an effect) then it is natural and provable. However this contradicts the supernatural nature of the soul/morality. This is probably the biggest hurdle in attempting to understand your arguments.

[pianofrieak2]

 

Why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t our interpretations of truth change as our perception of truth changes? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a part of growing up and getting older and wiser. Things that we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see have no real effect or relevance to us; we need to view the effect of a phenomenon in order to see and understand it. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong for using science as a basis for truth? Every relevant scenario in which we consider true or false is within the scientific realm and inquiry. The ultimate goal of science is to know the truth, all the truth that is knowable and relevant.

 

 

 

That's why science cannot be your basis for absolute truth morality. It changes. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

You can be agnostic and still believe in a god, there are many more options being agnostic over being a theist. You can believe in anything you want so long as you understand that anything supernatural is unknowable and/or has no relevance to us.

 

 

 

That's merely your opinion. Who says that God can't, or won't, interact with us? You're ASSUMING that.

 

 

 

 

 

Why would the soul be spiritual if everyone has a soul? There are many people out there that donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t practice a religion; this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t suddenly make them soulless or evil. It canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be shown with scientific instruments because it simply doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist.

 

 

 

Since you can't disprove it, then why are you arguing? I can't prove it with scientific instruments...you can't disprove it with scientific instruments. Stalemate.

 

 

 

The problem with believing in Souls and God created morality is coming up with an explanation on how the soul/morality interacts with us without becoming real and scientific. It violates the definition of a natural phenomenon; if it is observable (it interacts with us, leaves an effect) then it is natural and provable. However this contradicts the supernatural nature of the soul/morality. This is probably the biggest hurdle in attempting to understand your arguments.

 

 

 

You're also assuming here, if I get this right, that the nature of the supernatural is to exist and stand back while its creation just moves itself along. Or, in some cases, while its non-created stuff moves along.

 

 

 

Let me ask again: Why does the supernatural have to NOT do anything? What makes it so uninterested and non-interactive to make you think so?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)./The earth was a flat disk./The earth is a sphere.

 

 

 

 

 

Isaiah translates to circle. When did science ever say it was flat?

 

 

 

Come now...you don't know your history? It was Christopher Columbus' day that contemporary science called the earth flat. It's why so few people were willing to go on his voyage...they thought they would all die.

 

 

 

Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)./Earth sat on a large animal./Free float of earth in space.

 

 

 

Still wrong' date=' its called gravity. When did science ever say it was an animal? [/quote']

 

 

 

The Mayans actually thought the earth sat on a turtle and created all kinds of fictional stories about it. That was contemporary science at the time, and his example shows how the Bible was true over the contemporary science. History? :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Behind every Art, there is what? An Artist.

 

 

 

Behind every building there is what? A builder

 

 

 

So then, logicly, what is behind a creation?

 

 

 

 

 

Its your fictional creation story calling it a "creation".

[Mercifull]

Your rolley eyes smilies merely make your already badly constructed arguments even more pointless to read.

[Evilperson]

 

Come now...you don't know your history? It was Christopher Columbus' day that contemporary science called the earth flat. It's why so few people were willing to go on his voyage...they thought they would all die.

 

 

 

Did you even read anything at all that i wrote?

 

 

 

 

 

EDITED: quoted wrong person :oops:

[Guest GhostRanger]

Come now...you don't know your history? It was Christopher Columbus' day that contemporary science called the earth flat. It's why so few people were willing to go on his voyage...they thought they would all die.

 

 

 

That's actually not very true, despite them teaching that at school. Most educated people in the world had given up on the idea of a flat earth. The objections to Columbus' voyage had more to do with politics concerning his background, not knowing exactly how long the ocean would stretch, and politics concerning the wisest way to spend money.

[pianofrieak2]

Your rolley eyes smilies merely make your already badly constructed arguments even more pointless to read.

 

 

 

My all of one rolley smiley? Hmm...

 

 

 

And Ghost, I was saying that's where he got his information from. It may not be true but it's what they teach in schools. At least his idea works.

[my_pet_worm]

My pet worm:

 

 

 

If what your saying is true, please provide the quotes from the bible.

 

 

 

Um, did you read it? because every single one has the book, chapter and verse on it.

 

 

 

Also if thats what science was thoght to be, why didn't religion correct them? I would like to point out you are viewing science in a negative light. Half of those "previous science" views aren't even true. When did science say the earth sat on an animal? It is a common misconception that people thought the earth was flat around 1600. People knew that the earth was round. There were astrologists that figured many of those things out to be false in the renaissonce (sp).

 

 

 

1600? remember that this is science around the bible time, not in the medievil(sp) times.

 

 

 

Isaiah translates to circle. When did science ever say it was flat?

 

 

 

Am I gonna have to put in huge words on my post, THIS IS SCIENCE AT THE SAME TIME THE BIBLE WAS FIRST WRITTEN

 

 

 

Still wrong, its called gravity. When did science ever say it was an animal?

 

 

 

contemporary science, as pianofrieak says. He may be on the science side, but saying that just helped teh other. It may only be contemporary, but pretty much most science was, untill someone found out something else.

 

 

 

Its your fictional creation story calling it a "creation".

 

 

 

Show me this proof it is fictional, and I will listen.

[Swedemike]

Im not religious, but yes.. I believe in God. I believe that God is everything that is. The energy and matter. 8-)

[Serizzim]

Well first of all, I would like to tell I belive in God but not fully. There are many different faiths and they all tell us, God/s created the world. Maybe they think of something else? Never though of this? When we take a look back to the ancient Rome we shall see that they named the gods after the planets, they surely didn't done it without a reason. Also, what if the God is mother earth herself? What if the air we breath, the trees we look each days, what if this are the God/s we speak of? In the Holy Bible, they say, god created human by his own shape. The Christians belive in a spirit, a ghost, that is called soul. This is in every human, and this is the shape of us and the shape of god. Many people don't realise in what some people belive. They look but don't see. They watch a human but only see body. They are blind. Look within. There is a soul, an immortal one and this is the true god. Everything is possible, you just need to wish it and belive that you can succed. There are no miracles that some say like first be sick then healed in a minute. This is not done by God. This is the work of human belief. If you want it and if you got the will to live, you shall be healed.

 

 

 

Now for the finish, I would like to ask a question to everyone. I don't need the answers, think for yourself. Who are you?

 

 

 

Thank you for reading.

 

 

 

With regards - Serizzim :wink: