Do YOU believe in God?

[hazardmaster]

Pianofreak2, care to finally answer my retaliations and answers? You seem to be avoiding them for some reason?

[____]

Do people pray to God on a certian date? a certain season? How many company's have copyrights to God? Yea im sure.

And from that you concluded that at no point in time humans didn't invent the concept of a higher being to explain what they didn't understand / were unable to replicate at the time?

[trebor4312]

Nope i belive god was like science the olden days, it was the best way wecould explain the world around around us I believ that now we have science god has been outdated since science has more proof to support it maybe one day some one will come up with better proof that god exists but until that day its science all the way for me.

[HugATree]

 

Again, what does foreknowledge have to do with the future?

 

Foreknowledge is knowledge of future events.

 

 

 

Altering the future, destiny, etc. are all meaningless because you are still making the choice. As long as you are making the choice, you have free will.

 

If the future is already known there is no altering the future, the choices are already predetermined with the illusion of free will.

 

 

 

bear, the atheist is the one who must defend his religion. The Christian has no need because if he is wrong, he still wins. Whereas the atheist has the most to lose. You are the one who must defend your side, not the Christian.

 

:wink:

 

Yea, burning in hell because you followed the wrong teachings is a real win.

[Mercifull]

It's pointless. If you give evidence that Christianity is real to an atheist, he wouldn't believe it. The same goes if an atheist gives evidence to a Christian.

An Atheist wouldn't belive it because there is no true evidence for it ;)

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Pianofreak2, care to finally answer my retaliations and answers? You seem to be avoiding them for some reason?

 

 

 

I have a good feeling that it has to do with your lack of knowledge, and how he has answered almost every single one of your questions in other posts that he has made, just read. :wink:

[insane]

 

It's pointless. If you give evidence that Christianity is real to an atheist, he wouldn't believe it. The same goes if an atheist gives evidence to a Christian.

 

 

 

Besides, threads like these seem to be made by atheists all the time for the purpose of religion-bashing anyway.

 

 

 

I'm Catholic.

 

 

 

Ah, I don't think the point of the thread is to "convert" people, it's more to exercise our minds and debate the impossible (for me, anyways).

[pianofrieak2]

Thank you, MyPurpleCrayon. I HAVE answered all of his questions, at least to the best of my knowledge.

 

 

 

Trebor, if science is so wonderful, why does it keep changing? Science continually adapts itself to coincide with truth. Truth does not have to adapt itself because of its nature: it IS truth.

 

 

 

Once again, everything goes back to the fact that since the dawn of time, god has been aware of everything that will ever happen.

 

Therefore, he cannot be good because, as the creator of the universe, he created evil.

 

 

 

These three things occurred the simultaneously the instant god made the universe:

 

1. God creates universe and everything in it.

 

2. God is aware of everything that will ever happen, including the future existence of non-Christians.

 

3. God does nothing to prevent non-Christians from coming into existence.

 

 

 

bear, since you didn't answer my last question, what is good?

 

 

 

What is evil?

[aj926]

 

It's pointless. If you give evidence that Christianity is real to an atheist, he wouldn't believe it. The same goes if an atheist gives evidence to a Christian.

 

 

 

Besides, threads like these seem to be made by atheists all the time for the purpose of religion-bashing anyway.

 

 

 

I'm Catholic.

 

 

 

Ah, I don't think the point of the thread is to "convert" people, it's more to exercise our minds and debate the impossible (for me, anyways).

 

 

 

But that means this thread has no ending. I was tought that this was a bad thing.

[Guest GhostRanger]

You guys still aren't tired of this?

 

 

 

Considering how I love debating, no.

 

 

 

Apparently so do GhostRanger, MyPurpleCrayon, and bearofthunder. :wink:

 

 

 

It's pointless. If you give evidence that Christianity is real to an atheist, he wouldn't believe it. The same goes if an atheist gives evidence to a Christian.

 

 

 

Besides, threads like these seem to be made by atheists all the time for the purpose of religion-bashing anyway.

 

 

 

I'm Catholic.

 

 

 

Shadow, where have you been?

 

 

 

The point of these threads, and any intellectual debate, isn't to change the minds of your opposer, but to stir up some intellectual discourse. It's an excersize of the mind, and makes people who are observing from the outside understand the issues a little more. It might change someone's mind, but that's usually not the purpose.

[HugATree]

 

if science is so wonderful, why does it keep changing? Science continually adapts itself to coincide with truth. Truth does not have to adapt itself because of its nature: it IS truth.

 

 

Thats kind of the point; if it didn't change it wouldn't be science, just some primitive explanations hundreds of years later that no longer matches the evidence.

[Anesthesia]

if science is so wonderful, why does it keep changing? Science continually adapts itself to coincide with truth.

 

 

 

That's precisely the reason it is wonderful; because 'facts' are only there on their merits and are subject to constant review. That is how it is the most accurate view.

[pianofrieak2]

if science is so wonderful, why does it keep changing? Science continually adapts itself to coincide with truth.

 

 

 

That's precisely the reason it is wonderful; because 'facts' are only there on their merits and are subject to constant review. That is how it is the most accurate view.

 

 

 

Likewise...

 

 

 

Thats kind of the point; if it didn't change it wouldn't be science, just some primitive explanations hundreds of years later that no longer matches the evidence.

 

 

 

Do you not see what you're saying? You're abandoning the nature of truth. Science, I agree, is supposed to change, but it should not be your basis for truth.

 

 

 

Like I said before, truth does not change.

 

 

 

If truth changed, it wouldn't be truth. Thus, you cannot have your basis for truth be science. Truth must be objective, outside of the observer. Its rules must apply to all people at all times. It must depend upon anyone or anything for its proof or existence.

 

 

 

You two both argue so strongly for science, which is fine, but when you cross over into the realm of truth, you have no backing. Because truth is truth, it cannot change. Because science changes, it cannot be your basis for truth. At best it can point you in the right direction, but no more.

 

 

 

The only problem with that statement is that your basis for truth has collapsed. And since it's collapsed, you have no basis for reality.

[Anesthesia]

As science is subject to constant review it is the most accurate portrayal of the truth available and therefore the best view to follow. The religious view is one which can't be changed to accomodate new discoveries and is therefore flawed.

 

 

 

Are you even attempting to say that science is bad/wrong? It doesn't even purport to be the truth, it is just the search for truth through rational enquiry. I am done arguing with you, you are such an indoctrinated fanatic that you could very well believe black was white.

[bearofthunder]

 

Like I said before, truth does not change.

 

 

 

The Vedas (the sacred texts of Hinduism) were written in 1500 B.C, long before Christianity came into being. As you said, truth does not change. Therefore, according to you, the Vedas would be true and the Bible would be false.

 

 

 

 

bear, since you didn't answer my last question, what is good?

 

 

 

What is evil?

 

 

 

Good = people who go to heaven

 

Bad = people who go to hell

 

 

 

God claims to be on the side of the Good, but because he is the maker of the universe, he is responsible for anything and everything. Therefore, he created both Good and Bad. So, god is a hypocrite for saying that he only sides with the Good, since he made both of them.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

As science is subject to constant review it is the most accurate portrayal of the truth available and therefore the best view to follow. The religious view is one which can't be changed to accomodate new discoveries and is therefore flawed.

 

 

 

Are you even attempting to say that science is bad/wrong? It doesn't even purport to be the truth, it is just the search for truth through rational enquiry. I am done arguing with you, you are such an indoctrinated fanatic that you could very well believe black was white.

 

 

 

Hear, hear.

[megadedhed]

do i believe in god? no

 

 

 

do i believe in a superior being? yes

[insane]

As science is subject to constant review it is the most accurate portrayal of the truth available and therefore the best view to follow. The religious view is one which can't be changed to accomodate new discoveries and is therefore flawed.

 

 

 

I always thought science provided truth about natural events and the world, y'know, scientific things. Religion would portray truth about morality, and how to live your life - two different branches of truth. It's not science vs. religion folks.

[pianofrieak2]

As science is subject to constant review it is the most accurate portrayal of the truth available and therefore the best view to follow. The religious view is one which can't be changed to accomodate new discoveries and is therefore flawed.

 

 

 

Are you even attempting to say that science is bad/wrong? It doesn't even purport to be the truth, it is just the search for truth through rational enquiry. I am done arguing with you, you are such an indoctrinated fanatic that you could very well believe black was white.

 

 

 

For one thing, you're so angry that you're not even thinking straight. You're calling me names, lol, and didn't even address my response.

 

 

 

In one post, you've violated two laws of debating:

 

A. You call me names to try to make people think you're right and I'm wrong. You never do that because it makes you look foolish and ignorant, AND you start losing track of what you're saying to say.

 

 

 

Both of which happened.

 

 

 

B. You didn't even address the topic. In fact, you put up a smoke screen by restating what you already said without addressing my rebuttal.

 

 

 

In case those reading missed my point, let me restate it:

 

 

 

Science changes. Truth does not change. Thus, science can, at best, POINT the way to the truth but cannot be your basis for truth. Now, because science is your basis for truth, your basis of truth is flawed which results in you being blind to the TRUE reality.

 

 

 

If you're not going to make any points and just resort to calling me names in order to make you feel better, then I'm through with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moving on to bearofthunder...

 

 

 

The Vedas (the sacred texts of Hinduism) were written in 1500 B.C, long before Christianity came into being. As you said, truth does not change. Therefore, according to you, the Vedas would be true and the Bible would be false.

 

 

 

Not quite. The Bible was COLLECTED way before that but it was written over thousands of years. Ironically it all coincides with each other. *shock*

 

 

 

Good = people who go to heaven

 

Bad = people who go to hell

 

 

 

God claims to be on the side of the Good, but because he is the maker of the universe, he is responsible for anything and everything. Therefore, he created both Good and Bad. So, god is a hypocrite for saying that he only sides with the Good, since he made both of them.

 

 

 

You, also, did not address my question. I asked you what the NATURE of good is. What is the NATURE of evil? How do you know what is evil and what is good? Not just what they are as it is relevant to this topic. Because you didn't even answer my question, I won't respond to your statements. Later, when I know where you're coming from, I'll answer.

 

 

 

 

As science is subject to constant review it is the most accurate portrayal of the truth available and therefore the best view to follow. The religious view is one which can't be changed to accomodate new discoveries and is therefore flawed.

 

 

 

Are you even attempting to say that science is bad/wrong? It doesn't even purport to be the truth, it is just the search for truth through rational enquiry. I am done arguing with you, you are such an indoctrinated fanatic that you could very well believe black was white.

 

 

 

Hear, hear.

 

 

 

Your point? You've merely fallen for Anesthesia's smokescreen and name-calling tactic to debunk my ARGUMENTS? Nice job. You look great.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Equally true. ...but then again, one might argue, from the scientific viewpoint, that the truths that the religious viewpoint deals with are not truths at all.

 

 

 

That just gets into the whole Ode on a Grecian Urn business.

[insane]

Equally true. ...but then again, one might argue, from the scientific viewpoint, that the truths that the religious viewpoint deals with are not truths at all.

 

 

 

That just gets into the whole Ode on a Grecian Urn business.

 

 

 

Guess so - it depends on your views on subjectivism I guess. A largely religious person could also argue that while science may portray truth about nature, truth about nature is largely irrelevant to living our lives - as it doesn't improve people - it just improves people's circumstances.

 

 

 

(Not my personal view, just playing devil's advocate :P)

[bearofthunder]

 

The Vedas (the sacred texts of Hinduism) were written in 1500 B.C, long before Christianity came into being. As you said, truth does not change. Therefore, according to you, the Vedas would be true and the Bible would be false.

 

 

 

Not quite. The Bible was COLLECTED way before that but it was written over thousands of years. Ironically it all coincides with each other.

 

 

 

Vedas = written in 1500 B.C.

 

Old Testament = revealed to Moses in 1280 B.C at Mount Sinai.

 

 

 

The Vedas was put on paper 220 years before Moses even heard from god.

 

 

 

Therefore, according to your definition of truth:

 

Vedas = right

 

Bible = wrong

 

 

 

 

Good = people who go to heaven

 

Bad = people who go to hell

 

 

 

God claims to be on the side of the Good, but because he is the maker of the universe, he is responsible for anything and everything. Therefore, he created both Good and Bad. So, god is a hypocrite for saying that he only sides with the Good, since he made both of them.

 

 

 

You, also, did not address my question. I asked you what the NATURE of good is. What is the NATURE of evil? How do you know what is evil and what is good? Not just what they are as it is relevant to this topic. Because you didn't even answer my question, I won't respond to your statements. Later, when I know where you're coming from, I'll answer.

 

 

 

 

Here is the "nature" of things:

 

I have made two columns based on your previous descriptions about god.

 

 

 

Good | Bad

 

God | Satan

 

Heaven | Hell

 

 

 

Fits your views, right? But the problem is that god made the universe, so he made that entire chart. He can't be on the good side of the chart because he made both sides of it.

 

 

 

God created "bad," "satan," "hell." So, he cannot claim to be on the good side of things knowing that he was the one who made the bad side.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

 

You, also, did not address my question. I asked you what the NATURE of good is. What is the NATURE of evil? How do you know what is evil and what is good? Not just what they are as it is relevant to this topic. Because you didn't even answer my question, I won't respond to your statements. Later, when I know where you're coming from, I'll answer.

 

 

 

 

The nature of evil is "something God doesn't like" -- that should be enough for you.

[pianofrieak2]

The nature of evil is "something God doesn't like" -- that should be enough for you.

 

 

 

Wow, lol, I'm surprised. You're being VERY hostile for a needed comment. In case you haven't debated very much, it is NECESSARY for the person you're debating to define their terms. If they don't define their terms, you can't get to the heart of the matter. If you can't get to the heart of the matter, you're wasting your time and aren't even answering the question.

 

 

 

Unless you have actually have something important and relevant to say, then be quiet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bear,

 

 

 

I have no idea where you get your idea that I say truth is what came first. Just because a person from World War II is older than me doesn't mean he's more right and I'm more wrong. And that's exactly what you're saying.

 

 

 

Truth is UNCHANGING.

 

 

 

Here is the "nature" of things:

 

I have made two columns based on your previous descriptions about god.

 

 

 

Good | Bad

 

God | Satan

 

Heaven | Hell

 

 

 

Fits your views, right? But the problem is that god made the universe, so he made that entire chart. He can't be on the good side of the chart because he made both sides of it.

 

 

 

God created "bad," "satan," "hell." So, he cannot claim to be on the good side of things knowing that he was the one who made the bad side.

 

 

 

The chart will suffice.

 

 

 

God made the entire universe, yes.

 

God made good AND evil, no. In fact, when God created the world, He made it all good. There was no evil. There was simply the OPTION to sin and commit evil. When Adam and Eve sinned for the very first time, evil entered the world. :wink:

 

 

 

God is purely good. But because love requires choice, he had to leave the option for bad. Thus, God did not create the bad but He left it open as an option in order for love to exist and eventually triumph over hate.

 

 

 

I could swear I've said this many times before.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

Bear,

 

 

 

I have no idea where you get your idea that I say truth is what came first. Just because a person from World War II is older than me doesn't mean he's more right and I'm more wrong. And that's exactly what you're saying.

 

 

 

Truth is UNCHANGING.

 

 

 

 

As you said, truth is unchanging.

 

 

 

The Vedas was first, so it became truth. By the time Christanity was born, the Vedas had already been the unchangeable truth for 220 years.

 

 

 

That means Christianity is false because it contradicts something that came earlier than itself.

 

 

 

Of course, I do not believe any of this. I am merely using your definition of truth.

 

 

 

 

God made the entire universe, yes.

 

God made good AND evil, no. In fact, when God created the world, He made it all good. There was no evil. There was simply the OPTION to sin and commit evil. When Adam and Eve sinned for the very first time, evil entered the world. :wink:

 

 

 

God is purely good. But because love requires choice, he had to leave the option for bad. Thus, God did not create the bad but He left it open as an option in order for love to exist and eventually triumph over hate.

 

 

 

I could swear I've said this many times before.

 

 

 

God, who is omnipotent, knew when he created the universe that there would one day be evil, but he went ahead with it anyway. Evil was not a mere possibility in his mind, since he is aware of the end result of every event. God knew when he created the universe that there would one day be evil. I am sure that an omnipotent being such as him could have altered his plans and made a universe devoid of evil.

 

 

 

However, he did not do that. By creating a universe where he knew evil would one day exist, he is responsible for the creation of evil.

 

 

 

In other words, god provided the option for evil already knowing without a doubt that man would one day use that option.