Is There a God?
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Logically if there is a god (singular) he/she should have been known to mankind from day one. While some would like to believe earth is only 10,000 years old, the single god concept as we know it only become apparent 2,000 years ago. Prior to that every society had their own pantheon of gods (plural). So the question is begged as to where this kind and benevolant spiritual being was hiding?
-
Darkside Heartless
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Spring City PA
- Contact:
-
Darkside Heartless
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Spring City PA
- Contact:
-
Vertigo 99
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2684
- Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 2:01 am
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
If there is no God, how did we all get here? The chances of the big bang and evolution occuring are nil. And besides, in order for the big bang to have occured, there had to be something in the universe. Where did that something come from? How did it get there? Why did it explode? How in the world do you get our universe from a tiny little egg-shaped ball? How did all of the substances necessary for life get formed by an explosion, an inherently destructive process? Why do we have the power to reason, think, rationalize, philosophize, and EXIST? Why do we not see evolution occuring around us today? Why do apes not have any ways NEAR the mental capacity of a human, despite being supposedly "related" to us? Why are there no viable intermediate links between animals, or even apes and humans, for that matter? (With the supposedly billions of years of time, there should be trillions of fossils laying around for us.) How did a complete, fully functioning cell, capable of gathering energy and reproducing, come into being from random substances? Why are apes not extinct? (They should be, if we evolved from them, according to the laws of natural selection.)
I could go on for weeks. The point is, there IS something out there, infinitely more powerful than we, that can create something from nothing, that created us, and has kept us from degenerating into a mangled planet of animal remains.
If the Big Bang and Evolution did not occur, what brought us here? What put us on this planet, perfectly suited to our needs, and set us loose to grow, develop, and become what we are today, meanwhile keeping us from killing each other off the planet?
I could go on for weeks. The point is, there IS something out there, infinitely more powerful than we, that can create something from nothing, that created us, and has kept us from degenerating into a mangled planet of animal remains.
If the Big Bang and Evolution did not occur, what brought us here? What put us on this planet, perfectly suited to our needs, and set us loose to grow, develop, and become what we are today, meanwhile keeping us from killing each other off the planet?
Stryker, you are looking for the so-called antropic principle, which combined with certain theories answer all your questions.
The first step is to recognise that indeed many existental parameters might have been different, and that each possibility exists according to a theory and can be described mathematically. This theory brings no truth but it does bring knowledge, and will answer questions such as those you ask.
The reason we are here and things are the way we see them is because, if things were not this way, if parameters were slightly different, we wouldn't be around to ask ourselves the question. This is the antropic principle. It's the philosophical implication of advancing a mathematical model of the universe that describes each and every possible timeline.
The first step is to recognise that indeed many existental parameters might have been different, and that each possibility exists according to a theory and can be described mathematically. This theory brings no truth but it does bring knowledge, and will answer questions such as those you ask.
The reason we are here and things are the way we see them is because, if things were not this way, if parameters were slightly different, we wouldn't be around to ask ourselves the question. This is the antropic principle. It's the philosophical implication of advancing a mathematical model of the universe that describes each and every possible timeline.
Ahhh, now I am a airhead for pointing out the religion of multiple gods for millenia before the jews one god. I am comforted to know that airheadedness is not confined to me alone.Darkside Heartless wrote:I said *BEFORE* Jesus airhead
Jesus wwas born a little over 2000 years ago.
Besides, Jews had God at least since 3000BC
As to the Big Bang....So? I would see the god rational if there was "NO" big bang and the universe was shown to be suddenly populated by all the stars and they all revolved around our own world. Remember, even fifty years ago what we knew of physics has been radically altered.
The idea of one God has been around since that God created the world. The idea of multiple Gods devolved from this.
Imagine this scenario. There is a huge God. an infinite God. a God so big you cannot possibly wrap your mind around Him. so you trivialize. You know this God is loving, so you worship the quality of Love that this God shows, give it its own name, possibly make statues of it. You realize that this God can be a wrathful God, so you honor this Wrath, and pray to it that it will not descend on you. You give it a name, possibly make a statue depicting it. Continue ad infinitum.
Add a bit of background story to make it sound at least somewhat reasonable, and you have the religions of the Greeks, Romans, et al. In a more modern age, you could use this to describe the Hindu religion. The Britons, for a long time, had a religion based off one God. Their Druid priests were monotheistic, as well as many other cultures in society. There were many other instances of monotheistic culture, among which was (and is) Islam.
There may be trillions of possibilities. Only one is correct. All of the ones we have come up with so far, except the "God theory," have been wildly inaccurate and shown to be so. It's up to you, but as for me I'm going to continue on believing the best educated guess we've come up with so far.
Imagine this scenario. There is a huge God. an infinite God. a God so big you cannot possibly wrap your mind around Him. so you trivialize. You know this God is loving, so you worship the quality of Love that this God shows, give it its own name, possibly make statues of it. You realize that this God can be a wrathful God, so you honor this Wrath, and pray to it that it will not descend on you. You give it a name, possibly make a statue depicting it. Continue ad infinitum.
Add a bit of background story to make it sound at least somewhat reasonable, and you have the religions of the Greeks, Romans, et al. In a more modern age, you could use this to describe the Hindu religion. The Britons, for a long time, had a religion based off one God. Their Druid priests were monotheistic, as well as many other cultures in society. There were many other instances of monotheistic culture, among which was (and is) Islam.
So now the universe has to be geocentric for Christianity to be true?woodchip wrote:and they all revolved around our own world.
While I am not particularly familiar with this principle, I can empathize with what you are saying. However, the only logical idea that we've been able to come up with in about 6,000 years to see where we came from is that there is a God that made everything. Some things cannot be explained by science.Trichord wrote:Stryker, you are looking for the so-called antropic principle, which combined with certain theories answer all your questions.
There may be trillions of possibilities. Only one is correct. All of the ones we have come up with so far, except the "God theory," have been wildly inaccurate and shown to be so. It's up to you, but as for me I'm going to continue on believing the best educated guess we've come up with so far.
As I understand things, the anthropic principle answers the question of why we see certain things by saying that we would not be here to see them (or would not notice them) if they were not there.
As an analogy, suppose there are a thousand rats in cages (none of whom know about each other), and instead of intelligently feeding the rats, you simply randomly throw whatever you have around the house in their food bowls. So, for example, some wind up with marshmallows, some wind up with toilet paper, some get legos, and some get old computer parts. After a while, a lot of the rats starve to death, but some luckly continue to get food.
One of the rats that's been consistently fed might say to itself, "It seems awfully lucky that I get food every day--someone must be taking care of me!" In fact, though, the rat's getting food every day is precisely what it has to see: if it didn't, it would die and not be there to think about things.
The anthropic principle is typically used to explain why the universe is so friendly to life: if it wasn't, would we be here to notice? Likewise, earth seems awfully rare and life-supporting--aren't we lucky that we live here? Well, no. We could hardly live anywhere else.
I find the anthropic principle often vacuous, though. It can only explain why we see things, not why those things exist. It can tell a rat that it gets fed every day because, if it didn't, it wouldn't be alive. Well.. sure, that explains why the rat sees itself getting fed every day, but it sure doesn't explain why the feeding happens. Some take it farther than that and say, "Well, the rat can't see outside its cage, therefore there are a lot of things it can't know about. Since it gets fed every day, there must be a thousand other rat cages out there--that the rat can never know about--that make its feeding probable." That draws a smile from me. Seriously, is it easier to believe in a kind owner, or a thousand other cages? If you have to have some faith in the unverificable, it doesn't seem to me that the latter is terribly less silly than the former.
As an analogy, suppose there are a thousand rats in cages (none of whom know about each other), and instead of intelligently feeding the rats, you simply randomly throw whatever you have around the house in their food bowls. So, for example, some wind up with marshmallows, some wind up with toilet paper, some get legos, and some get old computer parts. After a while, a lot of the rats starve to death, but some luckly continue to get food.
One of the rats that's been consistently fed might say to itself, "It seems awfully lucky that I get food every day--someone must be taking care of me!" In fact, though, the rat's getting food every day is precisely what it has to see: if it didn't, it would die and not be there to think about things.
The anthropic principle is typically used to explain why the universe is so friendly to life: if it wasn't, would we be here to notice? Likewise, earth seems awfully rare and life-supporting--aren't we lucky that we live here? Well, no. We could hardly live anywhere else.
I find the anthropic principle often vacuous, though. It can only explain why we see things, not why those things exist. It can tell a rat that it gets fed every day because, if it didn't, it wouldn't be alive. Well.. sure, that explains why the rat sees itself getting fed every day, but it sure doesn't explain why the feeding happens. Some take it farther than that and say, "Well, the rat can't see outside its cage, therefore there are a lot of things it can't know about. Since it gets fed every day, there must be a thousand other rat cages out there--that the rat can never know about--that make its feeding probable." That draws a smile from me. Seriously, is it easier to believe in a kind owner, or a thousand other cages? If you have to have some faith in the unverificable, it doesn't seem to me that the latter is terribly less silly than the former.
" Likewise, earth seems awfully rare and life-supporting--aren't we lucky that we live here? Well, no. We could hardly live anywhere else. "
While I agree with most of your post Drakona, your statement above is incorrect in so far that we do not yet have enough knowledge to see that earth-like planets are rare. Up until a few years ago, planets around other stars was thought unlikely. Now we see they are rather common. It remains to be seen if we can hardly live anywhere else.
While I agree with most of your post Drakona, your statement above is incorrect in so far that we do not yet have enough knowledge to see that earth-like planets are rare. Up until a few years ago, planets around other stars was thought unlikely. Now we see they are rather common. It remains to be seen if we can hardly live anywhere else.
"When conciousness gradually came to the pre-cedants of man there were no single diety concept. Might have been a corn god or the god of the hunt but certainly not a lonesom dove."
Depends on the culture. The Egyptians and Greeks, well, the history of those cultures seems to indicate that. But there were plenty of others that didn't.
I don't see how you have any evidence to say for sure one way or the other, especially if you don't take the Bible to be historically accurate.
Regarding the Big Bang; the problem of where the matter came from is not unique to that system; it seems to apply for everything. The only meaningful (sort of) answer to that question is that the matter was always there; it never 'began'. This defies common sense, but any other answer that I can think of and one has to ask where it came from.
God is a similar problem. He must have been eternal as well. Obviously, both problems can be made a little smaller by assuming that time did not exist before the creation, although whether that is true or not, or what the absence of time is like, I could not answer.
A kind of 'infinite loop' cosmology is not logically contradictory, either (if it is possible), although perhaps even more counter-intuitive.
As to the involvement of God in his creation, considering he is supposed to be omniscient and generally infinitely more intelligent than we mere mortals (;)) it is more or less like chasing the wind to try and derail the concept by stating that he should have been more present. From a human perspective, yes; however, we couldn't even begin to comprehend the rationale behind God's plan when we don't know anything of it, so what makes no sense to us may in fact be by far a better approach. If you know what I'm getting at.
Can't prove or disprove it, yet again, because the act has not finished playing out. There are some theories though.
For one, one might argue this God wants people to be able to follow him without conclusive proof that he even exists. (Why? See above.) This being the case, he wouldn't choose to reveal himself beyond all doubt until the very end.
This being the case, even if certain things seem to point to the existence of a God, they wouldn't do so in too great an abundance. If everything was just completely peachy, it would be too obvious. (Not only that, but mankind may have no need for a God if he was fully content with the status quo.)
How can God let horrible things happen? Well, firstly, are they as horrible as you think they are? Secondly, why should he intervene? I know that sounds weird, but what really is to be gained? A little girl has a nicer life, or lives longer because of it? How much does she benefit, really - in the great scheme of things - and would she actually benefit at all?
Yeah, it's perverse logic, but I kind of got used to it after deciding we don't really know anything.
Depends on the culture. The Egyptians and Greeks, well, the history of those cultures seems to indicate that. But there were plenty of others that didn't.
I don't see how you have any evidence to say for sure one way or the other, especially if you don't take the Bible to be historically accurate.
Regarding the Big Bang; the problem of where the matter came from is not unique to that system; it seems to apply for everything. The only meaningful (sort of) answer to that question is that the matter was always there; it never 'began'. This defies common sense, but any other answer that I can think of and one has to ask where it came from.
God is a similar problem. He must have been eternal as well. Obviously, both problems can be made a little smaller by assuming that time did not exist before the creation, although whether that is true or not, or what the absence of time is like, I could not answer.
A kind of 'infinite loop' cosmology is not logically contradictory, either (if it is possible), although perhaps even more counter-intuitive.
As to the involvement of God in his creation, considering he is supposed to be omniscient and generally infinitely more intelligent than we mere mortals (;)) it is more or less like chasing the wind to try and derail the concept by stating that he should have been more present. From a human perspective, yes; however, we couldn't even begin to comprehend the rationale behind God's plan when we don't know anything of it, so what makes no sense to us may in fact be by far a better approach. If you know what I'm getting at.
Can't prove or disprove it, yet again, because the act has not finished playing out. There are some theories though.
For one, one might argue this God wants people to be able to follow him without conclusive proof that he even exists. (Why? See above.) This being the case, he wouldn't choose to reveal himself beyond all doubt until the very end.
This being the case, even if certain things seem to point to the existence of a God, they wouldn't do so in too great an abundance. If everything was just completely peachy, it would be too obvious. (Not only that, but mankind may have no need for a God if he was fully content with the status quo.)
How can God let horrible things happen? Well, firstly, are they as horrible as you think they are? Secondly, why should he intervene? I know that sounds weird, but what really is to be gained? A little girl has a nicer life, or lives longer because of it? How much does she benefit, really - in the great scheme of things - and would she actually benefit at all?
Yeah, it's perverse logic, but I kind of got used to it after deciding we don't really know anything.
Drak, the anthropic principle gets you nowhere on itself, but you have to appreciate where it comes from.
I'd like to say the following to everyone: it's not because you personally don't understand or don't know something that it is not known or understood by someone else. Nobody fully understands the how and why of the big bang yet, but some know more about it than others.
In this area of science, the procedure is to invent a mathematical model that:
1) concurs with experiments and observations
2) predicts new things that can be experimentally verified
This model can be used until a counter-example is found, after which it has to be rejected. A physical theory is never more than a model, though.
I don't know if you are familiar with imaginary time, Drak, but it will be a concept that is easy to grasp for the mathematician in you. Imagine our own timeline, in which the universe is exactly the way we see it -- our own timeline as it were. Time in this universe is represented by real numbers. However, you can draw an infinite number of parallel timelines if you consider time to be a complex value. Each timeline has it's own universal parameters and yields a different history (and future).
The function of the anthropic principle is limited to the justification of the choice of the origin in this complex timefield (which is nothing more than a two-dimensional axis system). We live on the "real" timeline, but we might just as well have lived on another line in the complex field -- which would have been real to those living in it, since the origin can be relocated by a basis transformation.
As a result, our timeline and our universal parameters have nothing special, their only special feature is that they are in our universe and not another one.
Once again, I'd like to stress that a theory is a mere model. Don't use the concept of imaginary time to say there must be an infinite number of universes. Just like two distinct circles intersect in two imaginary points, or that an imaginary line is per definition perpendicular to itself, imaginary time deprives us from intuitive representation capabilities. Just like we can have an idea what a one dimensional Euclidian space looks like, and a two or three dimensional one, but as soon as we go four dimensions or higher, we can no longer picture it in our minds, we can no longer interpret it. But we can still calculate with it all the same, you just up the vector order a notch and voilà ! No problem at all.
I'd like to say the following to everyone: it's not because you personally don't understand or don't know something that it is not known or understood by someone else. Nobody fully understands the how and why of the big bang yet, but some know more about it than others.
In this area of science, the procedure is to invent a mathematical model that:
1) concurs with experiments and observations
2) predicts new things that can be experimentally verified
This model can be used until a counter-example is found, after which it has to be rejected. A physical theory is never more than a model, though.
I don't know if you are familiar with imaginary time, Drak, but it will be a concept that is easy to grasp for the mathematician in you. Imagine our own timeline, in which the universe is exactly the way we see it -- our own timeline as it were. Time in this universe is represented by real numbers. However, you can draw an infinite number of parallel timelines if you consider time to be a complex value. Each timeline has it's own universal parameters and yields a different history (and future).
The function of the anthropic principle is limited to the justification of the choice of the origin in this complex timefield (which is nothing more than a two-dimensional axis system). We live on the "real" timeline, but we might just as well have lived on another line in the complex field -- which would have been real to those living in it, since the origin can be relocated by a basis transformation.
As a result, our timeline and our universal parameters have nothing special, their only special feature is that they are in our universe and not another one.
Once again, I'd like to stress that a theory is a mere model. Don't use the concept of imaginary time to say there must be an infinite number of universes. Just like two distinct circles intersect in two imaginary points, or that an imaginary line is per definition perpendicular to itself, imaginary time deprives us from intuitive representation capabilities. Just like we can have an idea what a one dimensional Euclidian space looks like, and a two or three dimensional one, but as soon as we go four dimensions or higher, we can no longer picture it in our minds, we can no longer interpret it. But we can still calculate with it all the same, you just up the vector order a notch and voilà ! No problem at all.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
-
Instig8
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Orange County, CA, USA
- Contact:
I believe that there is a God. Maybe even more than one. In fact, probably may Gods, as we call them, exist. They can process thoughts, actions, results, etc. at the rate of more than 6.022x10^23 simultaneously.
The 'Big Bang' is merely a ctrl-alt-del function of our universe, which is limitless in dimension.
So we all blow ourselves up? Time to reset and try again.
The 'Big Bang' is merely a ctrl-alt-del function of our universe, which is limitless in dimension.
So we all blow ourselves up? Time to reset and try again.
DCrazy wrote: I assume that you are actually referring to the Red Sea, which is probably really *not* the body of water they crossed. Even so, what documentation can you cite other than Exodus? There is a scientific explanation as to how the Red Sea could have parted.
No. I mean the Jordan river. Just before God destroyed Jerico. If you do the math and take some reasonable assumsions, approxmiately 2 mill were wandering around in the wilderness. That's kinda like all of Portland, Oregon packing up and WALKING to Eugene.
well .. not entirely. They didn't start out with nearly that much.As where the Red Sea idea has much merit or where it was done matters little to me. The scriptures describe it as a miracle and that is how I reguard it. ...even IF it was some kind of low tide.. what about the pillar of fire that held the Egytpians at bay?
Since this thread has gone horrible arrey, I'd like to point out that Egypt was basically left in ruin with little left at all at the Exodus. There was little livestock, no crops, thousands and thousands dead, and no army to defend it. Yet God spared Egypt. No enemy took advantage of thier condition.
just a FYI.
-
Flabby Chick
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Israel
Just a FYI it's really no big deal to cross the Jordan 'cause there's loads of bridges. Also theres a place just north of me where you can go kayaking on it, bit pricy though.
About the god thing. I'm a simple bloke with a basic set of outlooks on life, the evidence is just not there for me. (even though i like to read Drak sparring with people)
If there was evidence of god though, why should i have to believe in him/it? Ok, theres a god, he created everything, sent his offspring, who died to save our sins or whatever. Thats nice of them but i don't want to be a part of it. I want to fit into society observing the law, love my family and freinds, have a cool life and die.
I don't want to be a part of the club i want to be freelance, so it dosn't really matter to me so much if there is a god or not.
About the god thing. I'm a simple bloke with a basic set of outlooks on life, the evidence is just not there for me. (even though i like to read Drak sparring with people)
If there was evidence of god though, why should i have to believe in him/it? Ok, theres a god, he created everything, sent his offspring, who died to save our sins or whatever. Thats nice of them but i don't want to be a part of it. I want to fit into society observing the law, love my family and freinds, have a cool life and die.
I don't want to be a part of the club i want to be freelance, so it dosn't really matter to me so much if there is a god or not.
-
Infamous Ingus
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Ingulon
- Contact:
Re: Is There a God?
A very funny link [MS]Instig8.[MS]Instig8 wrote:I know it's old, but what the hay, I haven't seen it before.
The official God FAQ: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/index.html
I've read through this post, and it is truly amazing how many different opinions there are about the existence of God. Ultimately it comes down to faith. The bible says that faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities not beheld. And it also says that faith is not the possession of all people, so I would not expect everyone to believe in God.
As a correction: The Jews (Hebrews) were NOT monotheistic, nor were the first century Christians.
To appreciate this one must understand what is meant by the term God in both the Old and New Testaments.
A "god" can be anyone who has power or authority over someone else. Note the following:
Psalm 82:1 "God presides in a great assembly; he gives judgement among the gods."
1Corinthians 8:5: ". . .there are many gods and many lords . . ."
Satan is referred to as the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) because he is the "ruler of this world" (John 12:31). Which may shed some light on why things have been so screwed up for so long.
What the Jews(Hebrews)and early Christians believed in was an All powerful CREATOR who was above every other "god". Even humans can be gods. The Creator said to Moses: "I have made you god to Pharaoh." (Exodus 7:1).
No one has ever seen the Creator: 1 John 4:12 "No one has ever seen God." In fact, "no one can see God and live." (EX 33:20) Because "God . . .who alone is immortal . . . LIVES IN UNAPPROACHABLE LIGHT, whom no one has seen or can see," (1Tim 6:16). But "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10131
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Dude, shake last nights festivities from your head and you might realize his post merely commented on the source of some of the perspectives of those engaged in the debate and historically more so than here and now on the DBB.TheCops wrote:thanks for quoting the bible to prove the existence of "god".
following your logic i could quote a winnie the pooh book to prove the existence of a fuzzy golden bear walking around with a red t-shirt on.
He didn't even claim a hint of "proof" so ratchet back your defenses, no fire and brimstone has been cast your way
-
MehYam
- DBB Head Flapper
- Posts: 2184
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
- Contact:
Re: what I posted about the unconscious mind, and it does in fact start to appear extremely likely that you're hearing yourself. You might think it's impossible, but consider as an example how a child becomes comforted by a teddy bear. There's no comfort inherent in the toy, it provides nothing for them - the comfort comes from within.Drakona wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that there is a God. No doubt that it is the God of the Bible, the father of (and same as) Jesus Christ. Who else am I hearing when I pray--myself? Not likely!
It's hard to trust the judgement of people, we're so easily fooled. Take the election, for example - both sides can't be 100% right, correct? And yet on both sides there are fervent believers. So therefore some are wrong. So what is it about your fervent belief that makes it suddenly trustworthy, in the face of any person's unending capacity to get things wrong?
Yes, an Agnostic is a person that believes that we don't have enough evidence to determine whether there is a God, many gods, or no God/gods.kurupt wrote:i dont beleive in the christian god, or any other religion's gods either, but i'm open to the possibility of intelligent design. whats that called? agnostic?
There are many people who need a God to live. Why, I don't have a clue. Insecurity with themselves maybe, brainwashed by nuns, (like me almost) or believing there's a heaven because they can't cope with being dead dead. I go to church because I know it would hurt my Dad if I don't. We go every sunday cause he likes being their with me, and I love him. But, church to me is just a building, cold, dark, and expensive. The guy on the cross is just a man who was killed because he thought he was God.
I don't smoke, drink, curse, do drugs, or bad things. I love people and I don't kill spiders or any living thing. Don't tell me this is because of God, it's not, it's because my Dad brought me up this way.
What good is a God anyway. He doesn't stop girls from getting raped and murdered, wars, famine, pain, death, destruction. Look around you...If God is "all powerful" yet lets these things happen, then to me he's the original terroist. The real boogeyman. I hate him, or she, or it.
I'm not attacking anyone. I honor everyone's TRUE beliefs, and never poke fun at anyone for it. I just get annoyed when the "believers" look at the "unbelievers" as being dead wrong. Looking at the world today, the unbelievers are more correct.
These feelings are mine only, and are very deep inside me. I've never told them to anyone, even my best friends. So,if I were to meet any one of you, you would never hear them. I'm only venting my feelings here and I feel good telling someone.
Bettina
I don't smoke, drink, curse, do drugs, or bad things. I love people and I don't kill spiders or any living thing. Don't tell me this is because of God, it's not, it's because my Dad brought me up this way.
What good is a God anyway. He doesn't stop girls from getting raped and murdered, wars, famine, pain, death, destruction. Look around you...If God is "all powerful" yet lets these things happen, then to me he's the original terroist. The real boogeyman. I hate him, or she, or it.
I'm not attacking anyone. I honor everyone's TRUE beliefs, and never poke fun at anyone for it. I just get annoyed when the "believers" look at the "unbelievers" as being dead wrong. Looking at the world today, the unbelievers are more correct.
These feelings are mine only, and are very deep inside me. I've never told them to anyone, even my best friends. So,if I were to meet any one of you, you would never hear them. I'm only venting my feelings here and I feel good telling someone.
Bettina
Bettina, not to change your mind about the existence of God, but those of us who believe in God don't believe that God "allows" bad things to happen in the world. If anything, it's our own fault. Look back to the biblical description of Eden. Whether you think it's literal or figurative, it clearly shows early humanity as being in a state of childlike innocence, without crime, famine, hardship, or even sin. That first sin, the "original sin," the sinful condition that all humanity is born with, is a result of our imperfect nature. We are prone to sin, and thus we are not able to re-claim "Eden." I can say that I, personally, often think about that state of perfection, about how truly wonderful it would be for everything to have remained that way. No more death, no more hardship, no more sadness, no more hunger. As it is said, "Every tear will be wiped away." That's what heaven means to me: a place of peace and joy, a place where you can be reunited with everyone you've ever loved, with everyone you've ever cared for. If you read the last book of the great Christian allegory by C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about. (Even if you don't read it for the allegory, I'd highly recommend this series.)
Now there's a crock and it ain't butter. So TG, the guys that got be-headed in Iraq...it was their fault? God just stood by smiling to himself while it happened because the victims were stupid enough to go to Iraq in the first place? Tornado victims have no one to blame other than themselves because they were mind warped to build a house where Tornado's occur? Yeah right.Top Gun wrote: If anything, it's our own fault.
Bettina, this is a good place to vent...just wrap yourself in a thick skin or you'll start warbling like TheCops.
I find it somewhat amusing to have the concept of 'believers' tied into an election. That seems to imply people are willing to support everything one candidate or another does without question, as if they can never make bad decisions or mistakes...
But anyway. I suppose there are people like that out there.
Honestly, there are situations like that where no one man is really responsible. A very large number of coincidences combine to cause a disastrous event, when no-one had the ability or reason to believe that it would happen in the first place.
Anyway, Top Gun's point is not that every disaster that occurs is its victim's fault. He's pointing out that, as far as the Christian mindset is concerned, it's mankind's fault as a whole that such things ever occur in the first place.
Hence that it's humanity's fault there are beheadings, tornadoes, and all the rest.
One final thing to add (again): we can't just -assume- that it's God's responsibility to prevent misery altogether. If this world was perfect, then what good is a saviour, or a new world, or the banishing of sin, the Devil and all of the other curses at the end?
But anyway. I suppose there are people like that out there.
Well who else is to blame? It's not like someone intentionally sent the tornado along to 'own' them or something.woodchip wrote:Tornado victims have no one to blame other than themselves because they were mind warped to build a house where Tornado's occur?
Honestly, there are situations like that where no one man is really responsible. A very large number of coincidences combine to cause a disastrous event, when no-one had the ability or reason to believe that it would happen in the first place.
Anyway, Top Gun's point is not that every disaster that occurs is its victim's fault. He's pointing out that, as far as the Christian mindset is concerned, it's mankind's fault as a whole that such things ever occur in the first place.
Hence that it's humanity's fault there are beheadings, tornadoes, and all the rest.
One final thing to add (again): we can't just -assume- that it's God's responsibility to prevent misery altogether. If this world was perfect, then what good is a saviour, or a new world, or the banishing of sin, the Devil and all of the other curses at the end?
Back to the question, Is there a God?
The following won't satisfy many people, it may satisfy some, but at this point does it really matter?
Like any good father, God has allowed his children to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are against his advice. The chldren will reap what they sow. Like any good father, when the children come limping back home as a result of a bad choice, his arms are open, and his waiting embrace a real comfort. "Draw close to me," he says, "and I WILL draw close to you." But we have to take the first step. To really KNOW that God exists takes effort.
He promises in his word that, "if you recieve my sayings and incline your heart to wisdom, if you search for it as for silver, and as for hidden treasure you keep searching for it, you will gain respect for the LORD, and find the very knowledge of God." That's his assurance that he can be found, we just need to put forth the effort.
The following won't satisfy many people, it may satisfy some, but at this point does it really matter?
Like any good father, God has allowed his children to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are against his advice. The chldren will reap what they sow. Like any good father, when the children come limping back home as a result of a bad choice, his arms are open, and his waiting embrace a real comfort. "Draw close to me," he says, "and I WILL draw close to you." But we have to take the first step. To really KNOW that God exists takes effort.
He promises in his word that, "if you recieve my sayings and incline your heart to wisdom, if you search for it as for silver, and as for hidden treasure you keep searching for it, you will gain respect for the LORD, and find the very knowledge of God." That's his assurance that he can be found, we just need to put forth the effort.
-
Ford Prefect
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Richmond,B. C., Canada
And the choice offered by God to a 10 year old girl from Dakur raised as an Animist in poverty and ignorant of anything occuring more than 50 miles away from her home village who is raped and then has her arms cut off below the elbow with a machete as an example to nearby villages not to resist the local rebel band was....?
Oh that's right she is being puninshed for being born into an imperfect world due to "mankind's" rejection of the Christian God's offer of paradise in return for unquestioning love.
I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about this God of yours.
Is there a God? Well why not? All this universe must have come from some where, been created by something. Could be God. No way to tell.
Does the God as described in the bible exist? Not quite so supportable, you have to ignore a lot of reality to make that one work for me. Same goes for Allah, I know less of the Islamic doctrine but at least they don't pretend he teaches you to turn the other cheek but protects your soldiers during your pre-emtive strike. Still in all it looks pretty random to me as to who suffers the most and who gets to have a "happily ever after" life.
Oh that's right she is being puninshed for being born into an imperfect world due to "mankind's" rejection of the Christian God's offer of paradise in return for unquestioning love.
I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about this God of yours.
Is there a God? Well why not? All this universe must have come from some where, been created by something. Could be God. No way to tell.
Does the God as described in the bible exist? Not quite so supportable, you have to ignore a lot of reality to make that one work for me. Same goes for Allah, I know less of the Islamic doctrine but at least they don't pretend he teaches you to turn the other cheek but protects your soldiers during your pre-emtive strike. Still in all it looks pretty random to me as to who suffers the most and who gets to have a "happily ever after" life.