Do you believe??

[tapestrybabe]

this isnt a question about whether or not you attend church, or what faith you perscribe to... or whether or not you actually follow the teachings of jesus and what not...

but simply put..
do you believe in god??

[rice cracker]

No.

[Faithless]

this isnt a question about whether or not you attend church, or what faith you perscribe to... or whether or not you actually follow the teachings of jesus and what not...

but simply put..
do you believe in god??

Oh, but it opens the door to the whole issue of God's existance and all that.

I voted "not sure". For a while in college, I was pretty atheistic. Then I didn't like the snobbyness of that crowd.

I like the folks that are not sure, but are willing to stay open to it -- without subscribing to evangelism.

[Emperor_Mike]

I'm Catholic and I adhere to the teachings of Christ and mostly to those of the Holy See. There are many things that I do not agree with, however, and this often puts me at odds with the more...enthusiastic...members of my religion. I do believe in God and it's in this belief that I find strength in the face of adversity. Without faith in God I don't think I would have gotten through some of life's most trying moments intact.

[teaz0r]

i don't know if i do.
i was raised an anglican.
but my family wasn't
strict.

i have faith. i'm just not sure what in.
and the only time i pray is out of selfish
reasons... and a last resort.. sorta.

i dunno yet.

[Spikey_Hair]

Nope. I believe you live and die and that's it.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Yep I believe. But lots of times I feel that so many things are still beyond my understanding, even as I believe...I think lots of times it's a blind faith thing.

[ZiJing]

god is random-ness. god is just what people call random events that fall in, or out of your favour. if something good happens, and you've been a good person lately, it would seem like that random event in your favour could've been a blessing. on the other hand, if you've been evil, and something bad happens, it would come to mind easier that you've been punished by god.

i don't really believe in god, but i have nothing against those who do. it's just their own personal faith, and i have nothing to do with it. personally, i'm agnostc/buddhist

[Tao]

i'm very confused

[DragonKnight]

Roman Catholic but I believe in the human limitation on concieving the existence of God. I don't think it's this one white, bearded dood who know's it all, etc. But I do believe in the existence in the power of life that streams through all things. That to me is God.

[bluemonq]

you could be a universalist like i was... though i gave up on the crowd because we were drifting away from reality a bit. to be cynical...
"A walk through an insane asylum shows that faith proves nothing"
-Nietzche

[hooligan]

yes.

[Hiroshi2]

Yes.

[bii]

I believe in a higher power. Though, I don't know how to classify myself. I believe all religions are correct. Whether you call the power by one name like God, Allah, Buddha, the Tao, or by many names like Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, kami. Whether it's heaven or enlightenment. I feel that none are wrong.

I don't know. What does that classify me as? (please be nice)

[bii]

I know it's probably stupid, but I think that whatever religion a person believes in is right.

[Kuchana]

Yes. I have hope and faith.

[golden_buns]

Yes,

I think that god is balance.
That's why there's good and evil at the same time, because if it one of the two, then the world and the universe will come to an end.

I'm catholic, but I don't truly believe in the ideas that you must be 100% pure good.
We're all good and evil, that's how God made us.

[amietron]

i'm buddhist.

[kitty]

I clicked yes because I believe there is an underlying force in the universe, fate, destiny, or whatever, and maybe even a benevolent being watching us (definitely not a bearded white guy though... I think God transcendes gender and ethnicity, personally). I don't subscribe to all that stuff about God creating Earth in 7 days and stuff, but I do think there is something out there beyond our perception or understanding. I'm not even sure if it's a consciousness....

maybe i shoulda clicked 'unsure'.

[hooligan]

i'm buddhist.
me too, by birth :D

[sOrr1ez]

yuppery dooo~!
Born on the 7th, on a sunday, in church....
I BELIEVE!!!!

[amietron]

me too, by birth :D
what kind of buddhist are you? i'm a jodo shinshu buddhist.

[bluetrianglescott]

There is no god or gods or supernatural beings that control or influence reality. I think that reality can be understood without God--just because we don't understand everything NOW doesn't mean we won't EVER understand things. In fact, I think that believing in God or supernatural forces or beings actually stands in the way of undertanding reality. Look at the whole evolution debate, or most scientific debates for that matter--if we listened to religious arguments, or even were comfortable saying, "Well, we can only understand so much about the world that God made, the rest is a mystery", we wouldn't understand anything about how the world works. And figuring that shit out is the coolest thing about being human.

[hooligan]

what kind of buddhist are you? i'm a jodo shinshu buddhist.
i'd have to ask my dad, but whatever most taiwanese people are, that's probably me. i'm not practicing though, my mom was raised catholic, but she hasn't been baptized or anything. i'm a weird mix of religion.

[Chris]

me too, by birth :D

me three and yes

Zen, Tao, Kuan Yin Buddhism

[hooligan]

Kuan Yin Buddhism
that might be me, apparently the branch of buddhism my family's into has deities. like guanyin.

[Emperor_Mike]

If anyone is keen on religion and wants to read up on a very interesting topic (interesting to me at any rate) I would suggest looking up "gnosticism" on Google. Familiarise yourself with the "True God" and the "Lesser God" that is the Demi-Urge. Guaranteed to be mentally stimulating.

[angel nympho]

Man created God.

[mr. x]

Man created God.

long time no c

[Martino]

Death gives me the willies, so I selfishly believe most in stressed situations ... the rest of the time we don't talk. But yes.

[tapestrybabe]

There is no god or gods or supernatural beings that control or influence reality. I think that reality can be understood without God--just because we don't understand everything NOW doesn't mean we won't EVER understand things. In fact, I think that believing in God or supernatural forces or beings actually stands in the way of undertanding reality.

have you ever witnessed a levitation??
i have... which makes me believe...
if not in a god...
than *DEFINITELY*
in supernatural forces...

[angel nympho]

long time no c
I'm so pretty.

[mr. x]

I'm so pretty.

oh so pretty

[rice cracker]

In fact, I think that believing in God or supernatural forces or beings actually stands in the way of undertanding reality. Look at the whole evolution debate, or most scientific debates for that matter--if we listened to religious arguments, or even were comfortable saying, "Well, we can only understand so much about the world that God made, the rest is a mystery", we wouldn't understand anything about how the world works. And figuring that shit out is the coolest thing about being human.

I really like this.

[bluetrianglescott]

have you ever witnessed a levitation??
i have... which makes me believe...
if not in a god...
than *DEFINITELY*
in supernatural forces...

Not having seen one, and particularly not having seen the one you saw, I'd have to say of course I'm skeptical. There's a DIY "magic" video tape you can buy now that they sell on TV that shows how to fake a levitation.

And even if someone DID manage to "levitate", that doesn't automatically mean that some supernatural force was at work that can't be understood by scientific means.

I guess my main thing though is that I'm skepitcal that it wasn't some parlor trick.

[Tao]

have you ever witnessed a levitation??
i have... which makes me believe...
if not in a god...
than *DEFINITELY*
in supernatural forces...

five words: "mysteries of street magic revealed"

[Tao]

Death gives me the willies, so I selfishly believe most in stressed situations ... the rest of the time we don't talk. But yes.

hehe, i think that's my current situation right now. I guess i'm selfish that way. Just that sometimes I get influenced by other's "blind faith" and devotion to ie. roman catholic priests despite the scandal....and wonder how it could've ever come to this. But then other times I experience either great joy or weakness, and need a higher being to depend on.....especially when i feel helpless. So I don't know, most of the time my wishes and prayers have been answered one way or another (that is if you can call begging God for my parents safe return home, or better test grades to a benevolent being praying :rolleyes: )....and so I'm grateful for that, and thank Him. Other times i watch the news and wonder why all this blood has been shed in the name of God? Did he plan for children to suffer? And if so why? Why create if the result is destruction? Why let us struggle when we die anyways? Yeah I'm pretty mixed up right now....

[bluetrianglescott]

I really like this.

Thanks--I'd like to take credit for it myself but I kinda bit the ideas from reading this series on Evolution vs. Creationism in the Revolutionary Worker newspaper. Makes perfect sense to me.

Plus the political implications of believing in deities and not in material facts which can be independently verified are pretty shitty too--believing in a deity or deities, especially as expressed by organized religions, means that you have to submit yourself to the authority of a preacher, or preist, or intermediary of some sort who supposedly has the "inside track" with the Big Guy (or Guys, or Chicks, or Earth Spirits, or whatever). Even if you DON'T subscribe to a particular religion, and just belive in supernatural forces that are beyond our ability to comprehend, you still draw the line for yourself on what can be understood, and therefore CHANGED. And of course the political implications of that, if you're trying to make things work better for people, are none too cool.

Though I do want to say that I hope I'm not coming off like one of those dick atheist know-it-alls that ChottoMatte referred to earlier.

[bluetrianglescott]

five words: "mysteries of street magic revealed"
THAT'S the one.

[VV o n g B a]

i used to believe in christ, but i started questioning in middle school and had a break in high school.

firstly, i find it difficult to believe that God's word, which is supposedly the ultimate truth, can be interpreted differently by every by every believer. the ultimate truth with infinite interpretations is pretty meaningless imo. also, it really pissed me off that b/c of 2 ppl, adam and eve, all of humanity is doomed to suffer the consequences of original sin. if God really exists and allowed that to happen, then i willfully choose not to follow Him. screw God if He exists in that case.

[Emperor_Mike]

The general populace has this disturbing habit of interpreting God as a being who will take care of every little problem mortals may have. If God wanted to lead us through life without us having to take an active role in decision making and having to live with the consequences of whatever paths we take, why did He give us a brain? One of the most common arguments against the existence of God is "If there's a god, why is there so much evil in the world?" If you believe in the notion of a balance of forces, it's not too difficult to apply the concept of there being equal amounts of "Good" and "Evil" in humanity. I believe that it's a question of equilibrium. If the world was completely good there'd be no room for God since everything is so peachy keen (i.e. everyone's fine and dandy, healthy, happy, etc, etc.) Likewise, if the world falls into a chasm of evil, faith usually placed in a higher power for deliverance would dwindle and eventually die. There *must* be series of ups and downs, I think, in order to preserve faith and religion. But we'll eventually find out if God exists in any case. For better or for worse, is perhaps a better question to ask.

[Kuchana]

THAT'S the one.


Sorry for going off topic but you're from Greensboro??? You're only 45 minutes away from my hometown, Danville, VA. Heard of it? :smile:

[applehead]

it's easier to not believe in a god
than to believe in one.
i believe.

[ChinaLama]

i would say it's harder to follow God than to not follow God; however, I don't think it's really harder to believe in God than the other way around, since "belief" can just mean a nod, and nodding isn't really hard. I admire fundamentalist Christians but I don't really admire people who believe in God-for-convenience-sake. I find that i do that, too sometimes, so that's why usually, i just say I don't believe in God, because if I did believe in him, then I'm just a fucking hypocrite since I don't actually act like someone who believes in God. But to be more honest, I'm not sure-- maybe deep down, I do have some lingering belief but it's just easier for me to act as if I don't believe because then I can live my life the way I want, rather than have to bend to God's will.

[Emperor_Mike]

i would say it's harder to follow God than to not follow God; however, I don't think it's really harder to believe in God than the other way around, since "belief" can just mean a nod, and nodding isn't really hard. I admire fundamentalist Christians but I don't really admire people who believe in God-for-convenience-sake. I find that i do that, too sometimes, so that's why usually, i just say I don't believe in God, because if I did believe in him, then I'm just a fucking hypocrite since I don't actually act like someone who believes in God. But to be more honest, I'm not sure-- maybe deep down, I do have some lingering belief but it's just easier for me to act as if I don't believe because then I can live my life the way I want, rather than have to bend to God's will.

Believing in God does not mean one must strive to live in the most godly manner possible. We're humans and we're prone to making mistakes. It's not an all or nothing throw of the dice, of course. Our beliefs and our actions can be intertwined, yes, but very rarely does "sensible religion/sprituality" hinge on absolute adherence to a particular form of worship or lifestyle. Take for example the flagellents of late medieval/early modern Europe. These people would whip themselves and each other with barbed cat-o-nine-tails in repentence for their sins and, during bouts of the Black Plague, the sins of mankind that they thought had brought the disease upon them. If you fail to participate in self-torture, does it make you any less of a believer in the Almighty? You know, I hope not.

The general view on religion nowadays is skewed in both directions. On one side we have fundamentalists who believe that in order to find salvation they must follow the Words of the Lord letter by letter. The result of this rigid interpretation of the Good Book? Narrowmindedness to the point of absolute stupidity. Of course, you'd think that with all the positive lessons of the Bible (well...maybe not all) some good would come of it to offset the bad, right? Sadly, the answer is no. Humanity, hypocrites that we are, only observe the points that we find to our liking. Result? People who condemn and sin just as badly when behind closed doors.

Of course, we also have free-wheeling followers whose only attachment to religion may be a small cross, a holy book, or (reluctant) observation of religious holidays. Might as well not keep up the pretenses of being religious if they have absolutely no interest in living sensibly. Churches are filled with young people who fit the description. They go because their parents drag them along or because they want to showcase themselves to other eligible bachelors or bachelorettes. Why bother? A Church is not a dating service (although in my Church they have a Catholic Singles Night, but nevermind.)

That leaves us with those (like me) who sit squarely in the middle. Active participants in the Church and community, but not coked to the gills with fundamentalist notions of superiority over people who don't "Talk to the Lord." It's a happy medium for most, but both extremes of the scale (those who do the "God Thing" and those who don't) usually attack the middle either for not having enough faith or for being foolish for taking such an avid interest in religion.

I suppose the best road to take would be the middle one and perhaps the most important lessons we can gather from organised religion are to treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect, help those who are less fortunate, and be kind all. Live life like that I really can't see how anyone can go wrong.

[fresh22]

This is off to the side but still deals with religion.....a local newspaper in MN printed an article dealt with people's opinions on the different religions and the relation to their purposed incitement of violence. I forgot the specific numbers but to the people polled but here are the generalities:

90% and above of those surveyed believed the Jewish or Christians sects did not incite or promote violence.

~70-75% thought Buddhism did not promote violence.

~60-65% thought Islam did not promote violence.

other religions like Hinduism, etc. were not focused upon.

What is your opinion of these statistics? Do you think Islam is a more 'violent' religion than Judaism or Catholicism?

I really don't know much about religion, but to me I don't see Islam as anymore more violent than the other ones. I think it is people who wield or use religion for their own devious purposes that shapes perceptions on religions foreign than their own (Ex. demonizing Islam from Osama Bin Laden or Taliban).

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I really don't know much about religion, but to me I don't see Islam as anymore more violent than the other ones. I think it is people who wield or use religion for their own devious purposes that shapes perceptions on religions foreign than their own

Amen to that. Take Christianity for example. Would many of us consider Christianity to be a violent religion/lifestyle? Although violence exists in many biblical events, the values, traits, and way of living that the Bible stresses are peaceful and selfless to say the very least. Yet the dehumanization, oppression, marginalization, conquering, and killing of various peoples in history have been justified under Christian-related beliefs. Christianity itself has become a tool for individuals and certain groups to promote, support, and maintain/perpetuate their own selfish agenda(s).

[ChinaLama]

re: Mike. My point was really just in response to meena on the difficulty (and maybe i'm reading too much into this-- but the amount of respect a person should give) level of belief vs unbelief.

Maybe being condescending-- and i shouldn't be since i'm not religious so this isn't really my province-- but i think while the middle road may be more practical and more productive, a part of me just admires extremes more, because extremes, IMO, take more of an iron will to achieve. I think it's actually pretty hard to be a fundamentalist, for instance. Can't have sex outside of marriage, getting constantly ridiculed for their beliefs, heartbreak when people tell them to fuck off for "imposing their views." It takes a lot of guts-- i suppose fundamentalists would say it's all God's work-- to stay that course.

[Martino]

What is your opinion of these statistics? Do you think Islam is a more 'violent' religion than Judaism or Catholicism?

I really don't know much about religion, but to me I don't see Islam as anymore more violent than the other ones. I think it is people who wield or use religion for their own devious purposes that shapes perceptions on religions foreign than their own (Ex. demonizing Islam from Osama Bin Laden or Taliban).

The Christian religion is as violent as any other. Just look at the rivalry and bloody history between Catholics and Protestants down the centuries (continuing to the present day).

Become a Wiccan. They're nice. Mostly.

[ChinaLama]

Become a Wiccan. They're nice. Mostly.


but they're fugly. :frown:

[Emperor_Mike]

This is off to the side but still deals with religion.....a local newspaper in MN printed an article dealt with people's opinions on the different religions and the relation to their purposed incitement of violence. I forgot the specific numbers but to the people polled but here are the generalities:

90% and above of those surveyed believed the Jewish or Christians sects did not incite or promote violence.

~70-75% thought Buddhism did not promote violence.

~60-65% thought Islam did not promote violence.

other religions like Hinduism, etc. were not focused upon.

What is your opinion of these statistics? Do you think Islam is a more 'violent' religion than Judaism or Catholicism?

I really don't know much about religion, but to me I don't see Islam as anymore more violent than the other ones. I think it is people who wield or use religion for their own devious purposes that shapes perceptions on religions foreign than their own (Ex. demonizing Islam from Osama Bin Laden or Taliban).

In terms of bloodshed, Christianity is by far one of the worst offenders. The Crusades, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War...all of these were fought in the name of God and the one True Church. As for Islam, it's not entirely off the hook in terms of inciting violence. You needn't look further than the front page of global daily to see the disastrous effects of religious interpretation gone awry.

Most of the time it's the fanatics that give religion a bad name.

[Emperor_Mike]

re: Mike. My point was really just in response to meena on the difficulty (and maybe i'm reading too much into this-- but the amount of respect a person should give) level of belief vs unbelief.

Maybe being condescending-- and i shouldn't be since i'm not religious so this isn't really my province-- but i think while the middle road may be more practical and more productive, a part of me just admires extremes more, because extremes, IMO, take more of an iron will to achieve. I think it's actually pretty hard to be a fundamentalist, for instance. Can't have sex outside of marriage, getting constantly ridiculed for their beliefs, heartbreak when people tell them to fuck off for "imposing their views." It takes a lot of guts-- i suppose fundamentalists would say it's all God's work-- to stay that course.

Anyone with the will power to do so can prepare themselves to face adversity and ridicule. It's no special trait, but in terms of admiration I suppose you can say that at least the fanatics on both ends of the spectrum are consistent. They call it zeal, you know, but I recognise ill-placed faith when I see it and will usually sound it out for what it is. Fanatics aren't usually pragmatic and while some admire them for it, I see it as a psychological restraint.

[bluetrianglescott]

Sorry for going off topic but you're from Greensboro??? You're only 45 minutes away from my hometown, Danville, VA. Heard of it? :smile:

Yeah! In fact, my sister taught school there once, a million years ago. How's Danville?

[applehead]

i would say it's harder to follow God than to not follow God; however, I don't think it's really harder to believe in God than the other way around, since "belief" can just mean a nod, and nodding isn't really hard. I admire fundamentalist Christians but I don't really admire people who believe in God-for-convenience-sake. I find that i do that, too sometimes, so that's why usually, i just say I don't believe in God, because if I did believe in him, then I'm just a fucking hypocrite since I don't actually act like someone who believes in God. But to be more honest, I'm not sure-- maybe deep down, I do have some lingering belief but it's just easier for me to act as if I don't believe because then I can live my life the way I want, rather than have to bend to God's will.

oh i didn't mean it in that way.
i meant it more in terms of thinking.
not acting.
it's easier for a non believer to attribute
all the negativity and wrong things
going on in the world to people's stupidity
and insensitivity.
than for a believer who would question
the mere existence of those things
when god is supposed to be all loving.. blah blah blah.
i don't know where i'm going with this.

anyway, it's always good to question your beliefs.

i feel like i'm in philosophy class.

[angel nympho]

When somebody introduces you to a new belief or idea, isn't the first thought in your mind to question why they insist that what they say is true? Aren't the first two words to come to mind "prove it"? We generally don't buy ideas that are... kinda out there unless somebody can prove to us why it's true. Why don't we ask the same questions about proof of the beliefs and opinions we already have?

[John0101]

i'll bet my life that there is something, maybe it's not "god", but there is something.

Just a few dozen billion years ago (?), there was nothing but just empty space, nothing at all. Now i'm here talking to yall. Thats one big miracle.

[Emperor_Mike]

i'll bet my life that there is something, maybe it's not "god", but there is something.

Just a few dozen billion years ago (?), there was nothing but just empty space, nothing at all. Now i'm here talking to yall. Thats one big miracle.

Scientists have theories, but how order came out of chaos no one really know. As for god, "God" is a word given to a higher being. Who or what this higher being is, again, nobody knows.

[BaiginLong]

Well, I've been reading the Bible since kindergarden since I went to Catholic school, but I never bought into some of what they taught. I guess it would be safe to say that I was a Protestant even then. I don't exactly have a denomination to classify myself in, but it wouldn't matter now since I'm verily pissed at God.
I know many of the arguments for and against Him and whatnot. I've also studied world religions and cults to get a firm grasp of theology so I guess it is safe to say that I can answer most questions on religion. I suppose I may have to a do a little research on some specific topics since I'm a bit rusty on my knowledge.
In answer to the question: I am convinced of the existence of God not through being influenced in my youth, or even through exclusive studying religion, but by studying scientific phenomina and the universe in general. My best proof for the existance of God, without going too deep in to scientific babble, is this:
If you question the existence and origin of the universe you undoubtedly will have to ask "What existed before this? What caused all of this to happen?" Sure you could say it was spontaneous process, but then what determined the rules the process would follow. It would seem that there has to be something to initiate the process and some intelligent higher being to guide it. Even if you follow the cyclic universe theory, you know that there is no cycle in nature that is truly infinite.
Also, if you look closely at our world there are innumerable occurances that will defy known laws of science.
The more questions we ask and try to answer the more complicated the universerve seems to become and there are questions we have asked since the earliest days of recorded history (and perhaps even earlier) and have still made no headway into, no matter how our science has evolved or how brilliant the geniuses of our time are. This alone proves there is something greater out there than the human race can ever hope to comprehend and I say that thing is God.
Which God?
I don't claim to know that.
I would like to believe that it is the Christian God or some other benign being, but I am only human and cannot claim to know him. However, I have speculated and spent a good deal of time in my life contemplating the possibilities so I have a fair amount of confidence in my belief.

[tapestrybabe]

kinda off topic...
but anyone know when
the first edition of the bible came out...
like when was it first published...
cuz i mean, dang...
that book just seems like
its been around forever...

[Adaon]

TJ, the bible wasn't really known as the bible until they brought all the writings of the different apostles together. That must have taken some time and effort, and the different variations of wordings and such in the bible....awww geez.....it was a long time ago? Ahahahaha.

This thread has me reeling, I'm gonna re-read some of Mike, Hubert, Rob's and a few other's posts to even fully udnerstand where they're coming from.

But yes, Suzy, there is a God.

[rasheedgonzales]

but simply put.. do you believe in god??
yes, without a single doubt in my mind or heart. :biggrin:

[Mr.Lum]

I believe in God.

[Emperor_Mike]

Everyone should believe in God.

And those who don't will be burned at the stake.

Kidding! Kidding! Don't kill me.

[BaiginLong]

Everyone should believe in God.

And those who don't will be burned at the stake.

Kidding! Kidding! Don't kill me. You see that red dot in between your eyes? Tag you're it :biggrin:
But on a serious note yeah God is around you just need to look harder. I'll stand by that.
No burning at the stake please.

[Faithless]

i used to believe in christ, but i started questioning in middle school and had a break in high school.

firstly, i find it difficult to believe that God's word, which is supposedly the ultimate truth, can be interpreted differently by every by every believer. the ultimate truth with infinite interpretations is pretty meaningless imo. also, it really pissed me off that b/c of 2 ppl, adam and eve, all of humanity is doomed to suffer the consequences of original sin. if God really exists and allowed that to happen, then i willfully choose not to follow Him. screw God if He exists in that case.
Not two people. Just one.

Mel Gibson. :rolleyes:

I could believe that god is a woman more than a man.

[Mr.Lum]

I was raised Muslim (by my dad) and then after he left, (I was like 8 or 9) my mom made me goto church. I think there is a God of the Qur'an/Bible.

[rasheedgonzales]

i used to believe in christ, but i started questioning in middle school and had a break in high school.

firstly, i find it difficult to believe that God's word, which is supposedly the ultimate truth, can be interpreted differently by every by every believer. the ultimate truth with infinite interpretations is pretty meaningless imo.
that’s similar to what happened to me. shortly after middleschool and through early highschool i started questioning my beliefs. they couldn’t hold up against the questioning and i eventually left christianity.

i then found islam, which basically answered all the doubts i had concerning God, His Revelation to mankind, etc. now, i believe in christ, although not as the christians do. i believe he was a just a man, albeit a very special man – a Prophet who received revelations from God for the guidance of his people, the children of Israel.


also, it really pissed me off that b/c of 2 ppl, adam and eve, all of humanity is doomed to suffer the consequences of original sin.
not to bash the christianity here and start a debate, but the concept of original sin is one that isn’t just/fair. that’s because it entails holding people accountable for something they didn’t do. accountability should rest upon the shoulders of the one committing the act.


I was raised Muslim (by my dad) and then after he left, (I was like 8 or 9) my mom made me goto church. I think there is a God of the Qur'an/Bible.
just curious, but which of the two do you ascribe to now?

[Deadpool]

I don't believe in god butI believe in love. * oh man that was so cheesy*

But yeah....even though I went to a catholic elementary school, sang in a choir, and volunteered as an altar boy. I often had interesting conversations with the school priest. He often lit up my bullshit radar.

[Faithless]

I was raised Muslim (by my dad) and then after he left, (I was like 8 or 9) my mom made me goto church. I think there is a God of the Qur'an/Bible.
Interesting what parents put their kids through.

Somewhat against their wills, I guess.

[princess]

I don't believe in god butI believe in love. * oh man that was so cheesy*



im just the opposite. i believe in god and not love.

[Mr.Lum]

just curious, but which of the two do you ascribe to now?


neither realy. Im in the process of determining that.

[Deadpool]

im just the opposite. i believe in god and not love.
How can that be since God loves?

[kuilong]

Scientists have theories, but how order came out of chaos no one really know.

As Feynman said, "I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose -- which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
Or: "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."

If you question the existence and origin of the universe you undoubtedly will have to ask "What existed before this? What caused all of this to happen?" Sure you could say it was spontaneous process, but then what determined the rules the process would follow. It would seem that there has to be something to initiate the process and some intelligent higher being to guide it. Even if you follow the cyclic universe theory, you know that there is no cycle in nature that is truly infinite.

There's no (other!) being in nature like God, either. :P Stating that the universe had to have a cause just begs the question -- what caused the cause? If God can be eternal, why not the universe? (I'm not saying this question doesn't have responses, but your post fails to even address the fact that someone could ask it)

Interesting what parents put their kids through.

Somewhat against their wills, I guess.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Are you saying that parents shouldn't be able to indoctrinate their children with their beliefs (not necessarily religious)?

[BaiginLong]

There's no (other!) being in nature like God, either. :P Stating that the universe had to have a cause just begs the question -- what caused the cause? If God can be eternal, why not the universe? (I'm not saying this question doesn't have responses, but your post fails to even address the fact that someone could ask it)the answer to that is simple
scientists have proven an actual origin to the universe that they haven't pinpointed yet
this goes into astrophysics so ehh not about to write out a bloated explaination of the data
they also have enough evidence for its end as well

[Adaon]

How can that be since God loves?
Actually, God IS Love....if I remember 1 Corinthians 13 correctly......though you'd have to replace Love and God to make an easier read. but yeah there ya go. :rolleyes:
It still bugs me how I can still be convinced of the "truths" and other things "proven" in this world by other people who are just as faulty as I am. Talk about screwy human nature. Hahaha :rolleyes:

[kitty]

the answer to that is simple
scientists have proven an actual origin to the universe that they haven't pinpointed yet
this goes into astrophysics so ehh not about to write out a bloated explaination of the data
they also have enough evidence for its end as well

i thought they figured something out that involves an expanding and contracting of the universe and then expanding again... in its own form of equilibrium?

[BaiginLong]

i thought they figured something out that involves an expanding and contracting of the universe and then expanding again... in its own form of equilibrium?essentially the cyclic universe theory
i mentioned it earlier and it's only a theory
also no cycle in nature is truly infinite
as I said
which, in essence, defeats such a theory
if you want you can throw me an example of a cycle and I'll explain how there is an absolute point of origin for it

[chaoticharmony]

this isnt a question about whether or not you attend church, or what faith you perscribe to... or whether or not you actually follow the teachings of jesus and what not...

but simply put..
do you believe in god??

I believe. Actually all explanations as to the origins of the universe (God, big bang theory, etc.) seem pretty far fetched to me. God just seems the most logical out of all that I have heard. More good has come out of me believing, than not.
Though, we could have been created by aliens as an experiment and the earth is just one big reality TV show for the rest of the galaxy.

[kuilong]

Hi, sorry to resurrect this thread for so long, but I have a few questions for people who answered:

1. Do you believe in a theistic God who intervenes in human affairs? By a theistic God, I mean either an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipuissant being or a maximally powerful being (ala St. Anselm) -- specify which, please.

2. Do you believe your belief or disbelief is rational? Or is it more like "I just believe it's that way, full stop."

3. Do you believe that you could justify your belief to someone who doesn't hold it?

4. If yes, please attempt to justify your belief, or lack thereof.

I may post my own answers to these when I have time.

[rasheedgonzales]

1. Do you believe in a theistic God who intervenes in human affairs? By a theistic God, I mean either an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipuissant being or a maximally powerful being (ala St. Anselm) -- specify which, please.
yes, i do. islamic belief concerning God is that He is the Creator of all that exists in the universe and that He has knowledge and is aware of everything. islamic belief is also that He is the Disposer of the affairs and is in control of the whole universe, maintaining it, sustaining it and providing for all of His creation and that He is capable of doing whatever He wills.



2. Do you believe your belief or disbelief is rational? Or is it more like "I just believe it's that way, full stop."
yes, i believe my belief is completely rational and logical.



3. Do you believe that you could justify your belief to someone who doesn't hold it?
that depends on who that someone is and his ability to discern between truth and falsehood.



4. If yes, please attempt to justify your belief, or lack thereof.
don’t got much time to write up something at the moment... maybe sometime later.

[kuilong]

yes, i do. islamic belief concerning God is that He is the Creator of all that exists in the universe and that He has knowledge and is aware of everything.

Including the future? (Not just some future contingencies, but the whole future)

islamic belief is also that He is the Disposer of the affairs and is in control of the whole universe, maintaining it, sustaining it and providing for all of His creation and that He is capable of doing whatever He wills.

Whatever He wills? Or just logically possible things that He wills? (i.e., He can't make a square circle) Or just things that don't go against any of His attributes? (i.e., He can't do evil, or He can't cause Himself not to exist)

don’t got much time to write up something at the moment... maybe sometime later.

Cool, thanks.

[rasheedgonzales]

Including the future? (Not just some future contingencies, but the whole future)
yeah, whatever the word “everything” entails, He knows. there’s an arabic saying:

يعلم ما كان وما يكون، وما لم يكن لو كان كيف يكون

which roughly translates to: “He knows what was and what is, and what is not – and if it was, how it would be.” this complete knowledge is what is necessitated by God’s attribute of perfect knowledge.



Whatever He wills? Or just logically possible things that He wills? (i.e., He can't make a square circle) Or just things that don't go against any of His attributes? (i.e., He can't do evil, or He can't cause Himself not to exist)
islamic belief is that God is capable of all things and that there is nothing that He is unable to do... however, there are things that He won’t do – things that are unbefitting for Him to do, things that go against His attributes of perfection, like you mentioned... etc. (with regards to causing Himself not to exist, this would fall under going against His attributes of perfection as one of His attributes is that He is Living, never dying.)

[kuilong]

yeah, whatever the word “everything” entails, He knows. there’s an arabic saying:

يعلم ما كان وما يكون، وما لم يكن لو كان كيف يكون[/font]

which roughly translates to: “He knows what was and what is, and what is not – and if it was, how it would be.” this complete knowledge is what is necessitated by God’s attribute of perfect knowledge.

Do you also believe in free will? (that is, libertarian free will -- someone freely does "A" if they could have done otherwise) If you do, how do you reconcile that with omniscience?

islamic belief is that God is capable of all things and that there is nothing that He is unable to do... however, there are things that He won’t do – things that are unbefitting for Him to do, things that go against His attributes of perfection, like you mentioned... etc. (with regards to causing Himself not to exist, this would fall under going against His attributes of perfection as one of His attributes is that He is Living, never dying.)

So you're saying that God is omniscient because he can do everything, except what his nature forbids him to? I don't think that's a good definition, as I'll explain below:

Consider the case of McEar, a gentleman whose nature only permits him to do one thing: scratch his ear. However, McEar is actually able to scratch his ear. Therefore, he can do everything, except what his nature forbids him to. Thus, McEar is omnipotent.

And obviously, that is absurd. That's why I don't think that definition of God entails omniscience.

[rasheedgonzales]

Do you also believe in free will? (that is, libertarian free will -- someone freely does "A" if they could have done otherwise) If you do, how do you reconcile that with omniscience?
yes, i believe in free will. God has given us the ability to choose and deliberate between various choices throughout life and we are free to make whatever choices we want, whether we’re able to carry out what we choose to do however, is another matter altogether. this free will that God has given us in no way contradicts His attribute of omniscience.



So you're saying that God is omniscient because he can do everything, except what his nature forbids him to?
no, that’s not what i’m saying. knowledge and ability are two separate attributes God possesses. He is both omniscient and omnipotent and He is not one due to the other...

[kuilong]

[font=trebuchet ms]
yes, i believe in free will. God has given us the ability to choose and deliberate between various choices throughout life and we are free to make whatever choices we want, whether we’re able to carry out what we choose to do however, is another matter altogether. this free will that God has given us in no way contradicts His attribute of omniscience.

How is that possible though? Let's say that God knows in advance that I'm going to do A, and let's also assume that God is infallibly omniscient (he's never wrong). Thus, I cannot not do A, because that would mean God is fallible. Since I can't not do A, I don't have the free will to choose anything but A.

For a more rigorous proof of this, see this (http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/article_view.php?c=&id=19)

no, that’s not what i’m saying. knowledge and ability are two separate attributes God possesses. He is both omniscient and omnipotent and He is not one due to the other...

Sorry, I meant omnipotent. -_- You said:

there are things that He won’t do – things that are unbefitting for Him to do, things that go against His attributes of perfection, like you mentioned... etc.

Thus, effectively, he can do anything that doesn't go against any of His attributes, right?

That's not omniscience. See McEar example. Is McEar omnipotent because he can do everything except those things that go against his attributes?

[rasheedgonzales]

How is that possible though? Let's say that God knows in advance that I'm going to do A, and let's also assume that God is infallibly omniscient (he's never wrong). Thus, I cannot not do A, because that would mean God is fallible. Since I can't not do A, I don't have the free will to choose anything but A.

For a more rigorous proof of this, see this (http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/article_view.php?c=&id=19)
there’s one major flaw with the reasoning employed by whoever wrote that argument. and that’s his overlooking the simple fact that the person chose to do action A. this ablity of choice is what free will is all about. free will is not about being able to do whatever one wants to do, it’s about one being able to make conscious choices and decisions. God’s fore-knowledge of what we’re going to choose does not interfere with our choosing to do whatever it is we choose because we’re still able to make those choices, we are not compelled to make those choices.



Thus, effectively, he can do anything that doesn't go against any of His attributes, right?

That's not omniscience. See McEar example. Is McEar omnipotent because he can do everything except those things that go against his attributes?
this argument reminds me a lot of the “if God can do anything, can He create a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it?” argument... just with a different wording.

there are a couple things that you have to keep in mind with this discussion...

firstly, there is a difference between the Creator and the created. the latter is restricted to the realities of time and space whereas the former isn’t. the latter is also restricted to the will of the former in that the latter cannot do anything except and until the former allows and wills it (this has its own explanation as well... part of it is as i mentioned above, our free will is not absolute... free will in terms of mankind’s free will is the ability to choose and deliberate, making conscious decisions. this ability is what God has allowed for us).

secondly, with respect to God, we’re talking about absolute perfection and this perfection exists with affirmation and with negation... so if you affirm intelligence and awareness, you are automaticly negating stupidity and ignorance. likewise, to affirm strength and capability, you are negating weakness and incapability. this is because the presence of two opposing components is not held in perfection, to prove one form of perfection you can’t negate another form of it as God’s perfection is absolute and not restricted to one or two characterisitcs. and that’s why God is ever-living and does not die, why He is omniscient and is not ignorant of anything that has occured, is occurring, will occur or would have occurred had it occurred, and why He is omnipotent and not incapable, etc.

so with respect to God creating a rock so heavy He can’t lift it, this scenario in and of itself is quite foolish, because it is something that is automatically negated with the affirmation of God’s omnipotence.

[kuilong]

[font=trebuchet ms]
there’s one major flaw with the reasoning employed by whoever wrote that argument. and that’s his overlooking the simple fact that the person chose to do action A. this ablity of choice is what free will is all about. free will is not about being able to do whatever one wants to do, it’s about one being able to make conscious choices and decisions. God’s fore-knowledge of what we’re going to choose does not interfere with our choosing to do whatever it is we choose because we’re still able to make those choices, we are not compelled to make those choices.

The point isn't that you can't do whatever you want to do. The point is that you cannot do anything but what God has forseen. Thus, you can't make any choice, because the future (and all your choices) are already predetermined.

this argument reminds me a lot of the “if God can do anything, can He create a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it?” argument... just with a different wording.

there are a couple things that you have to keep in mind with this discussion...

firstly, there is a difference between the Creator and the created. the latter is restricted to the realities of time and space whereas the former isn’t. the latter is also restricted to the will of the former in that the latter cannot do anything except and until the former allows and wills it (this has its own explanation as well... part of it is as i mentioned above, our free will is not absolute... free will in terms of mankind’s free will is the ability to choose and deliberate, making conscious decisions. this ability is what God has allowed for us).

secondly, with respect to God, we’re talking about absolute perfection and this perfection exists with affirmation and with negation... so if you affirm intelligence and awareness, you are automaticly negating stupidity and ignorance. likewise, to affirm strength and capability, you are negating weakness and incapability. this is because the presence of two opposing components is not held in perfection, to prove one form of perfection you can’t negate another form of it as God’s perfection is absolute and not restricted to one or two characterisitcs. and that’s why God is ever-living and does not die, why He is omniscient and is not ignorant of anything that has occured, is occurring, will occur or would have occurred had it occurred, and why He is omnipotent and not incapable, etc.

so with respect to God creating a rock so heavy He can’t lift it, this scenario in and of itself is quite foolish, because it is something that is automatically negated with the affirmation of God’s omnipotence.

I think this is a stawman. You said it reminds you of the "rock so large" argument, and then proceed to argue against that. In reality, the arguments are completely unrelated (there are ways to still salvage omniscience from the "rock so large" argument, e.g. Anselmian "maximal greatness").

I don't see how your first response has any bearing on my argument, so I'll address the second one. You can apply this to McEar as well -- McEar embodies the perfection of ear-scratching, so this automatically negates the weakness of non-ear scratching.

You might argue that ear-scratching is not a virtue/perfection. But how do we know that intelligence is a virtue? If you define a 'virtue' as "one of God's characteristics", then the argument becomes meaningless, since then the objection simply becomes "ear-scratching is not one of God's characteristics", which is obviously true, and obviously has no bearing on the argument whatsoever.

If you define a virtue in some other way, then feel free to state how you define a virtue.

[rasheedgonzales]

The point isn't that you can't do whatever you want to do. The point is that you cannot do anything but what God has forseen. Thus, you can't make any choice, because the future (and all your choices) are already predetermined.
you seem to not understand the simple fact that you are the one making the choice. God has knowledge of what you’re choosing before you choose it – this is what His complete and perfect knowledge entails. He’s not the one who makes the choice for you, you make it yourself. His fore-knowledge of your choice plays no part in your actual decision making process. when you read this post, you have the choice to click the reply button or not. if you choose to click it, God knew that you would do that, and if you don’t click it, He knew you would do that too. but the simple fact remains, you are the one making the choice. not Him.



I think this is a stawman. You said it reminds you of the "rock so large" argument, and then proceed to argue against that. In reality, the arguments are completely unrelated (there are ways to still salvage omniscience from the "rock so large" argument, e.g. Anselmian "maximal greatness").
either you’re mixing up “omnipotent” and “omniscient” or i’m totally missing something here. you’ve mentioned “omniscience” more than once in a place where one would think you meant “omnipotence”...


So you're saying that God is omniscient because he can do everything, except what his nature forbids him to? I don't think that's a good definition, as I'll explain below:

Consider the case of McEar, a gentleman whose nature only permits him to do one thing: scratch his ear. However, McEar is actually able to scratch his ear. Therefore, he can do everything, except what his nature forbids him to. Thus, McEar is omnipotent.

And obviously, that is absurd. That's why I don't think that definition of God entails omniscience.
That's not omniscience. See McEar example. Is McEar omnipotent because he can do everything except those things that go against his attributes?
in any case, i mentioned the “rock so large” argument to make a point, and that point was that the argument that God not doing something that cannot be done due to the nature of that thing is something ridiculous, i.e., creating a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it. in one of my previous posts i stated:



islamic belief is that God is capable of all things and that there is nothing that He is unable to do... however, there are things that He won’t do – things that are unbefitting for Him to do, things that go against His attributes of perfection, like you mentioned... etc. (with regards to causing Himself not to exist, this would fall under going against His attributes of perfection as one of His attributes is that He is Living, never dying.)

so naturally, what follows from this is that if God has the power and ability to do whatever He wills, then the fact that He does not die, does not sleep, does not create rocks so heavy He cannot lift them... does not... does not... none of this diminishes His capability and omnipotence.



You might argue that ear-scratching is not a virtue/perfection. But how do we know that intelligence is a virtue? If you define a 'virtue' as "one of God's characteristics", then the argument becomes meaningless, since then the objection simply becomes "ear-scratching is not one of God's characteristics", which is obviously true, and obviously has no bearing on the argument whatsoever.

If you define a virtue in some other way, then feel free to state how you define a virtue.
i define virtue as any admirable trait or quality, just as any standard dictionary would define it.

as for intelligence being a virtue, then i ask you this... when has anyone ever been praised for being stupid? in practically every culture and civilization known to mankind, the one who knows is always held in higher esteem than the one who doesn’t know. and the one who doesn’t know is seen as deficient or lacking in some regard. and the same goes for strength and weakness.

[kuilong]

[font=trebuchet ms]
you seem to not understand the simple fact that you are the one making the choice. God has knowledge of what you’re choosing before you choose it – this is what His complete and perfect knowledge entails. He’s not the one who makes the choice for you, you make it yourself. His fore-knowledge of your choice plays no part in your actual decision making process. when you read this post, you have the choice to click the reply button or not. if you choose to click it, God knew that you would do that, and if you don’t click it, He knew you would do that too. but the simple fact remains, you are the one making the choice. not Him.

Well, no, because I can't choose to do something God knew in advance I wouldn't do. If I did so, he wouldn't be omniscient, would he?

Look at it this way: Let's say I can do A or not-A ("A" could be clicking submit at the end of this post or somesuch). For me to say that the choice between A and not-A is free, there must be at least the possibility that I can do either, right? If there's no possibility of doing not-A, then my choice of doing A can hardly be said to be free, yes? The linked argument shows that for there to be a possibility of my choosing either, God cannot be infallibly omniscient.


either you’re mixing up “omnipotent” and “omniscient” or i’m totally missing something here. you’ve mentioned “omniscience” more than once in a place where one would think you meant “omnipotence”...

Argh, you're right, sorry! I'm trying to finish a lab while I'm posting here. :P Anyway, the arguments aren't analogous.


i define virtue as any admirable trait or quality, just as any standard dictionary would define it.

Okay, so you're not a divine-command ethicist. Just checking.

The argument was that saying God won't ever do X means God isn't omniscient. Sure, God can do anything in line with His attributes. So can McEar. Doing anything that isn't out of line with your attributes doesn't make you omniscient -- being able to do anything at all does.

p.s. i cant belieive i just read the entirety of all this nonsensical, self-righteous dribble.

But nonsensical, self-righteous dribble is fun...

[Martino]

This thread has become an argument about what people think their ideal god should be like, even presuming on abilities such as fore knowledge, infallability, the presumed perfection of His creation or whatever.

Hands up anyone who thinks they have experienced divine revelation ie are an avatar in some form?

If no hands are raised, your ideas about what constitutes a perfect diety are about as relevant and "logical" as your ideas of what constitutes a really great pizza.

God is unknowable.

[rasheedgonzales]

Well, no, because I can't choose to do something God knew in advance I wouldn't do. If I did so, he wouldn't be omniscient, would he?

Look at it this way: Let's say I can do A or not-A ("A" could be clicking submit at the end of this post or somesuch). For me to say that the choice between A and not-A is free, there must be at least the possibility that I can do either, right? If there's no possibility of doing not-A, then my choice of doing A can hardly be said to be free, yes? The linked argument shows that for there to be a possibility of my choosing either, God cannot be infallibly omniscient.
that’s the whole point, you do have the choice to do A or B. God knows which of the two you’re going to choose, but you don’t. this reasoning that just because God knows you’re going to choose B before you choose B, and whatever He knows is correct, means that you don’t really have a choice at all, is flawed reasoning. it’s flawed because you don’t have knowledge of what you’re going to do before you do it. and you are given choices to do things, A, B or C. and through your own free will, you choose which ever of the options you want to choose. you’re mixing up perspectives and you have to understand that God’s knowledge of what you’re going to do plays no part in your decision making process. other than Him knowing that you’re going to do it, the fact still remains that you choose to do it. His knowledge of your choice does not entail that He compelled you to make it.

anyhow, this can go on for days. so, regarding this point, i’m going to stop here... :smile:




The argument was that saying God won't ever do X means God isn't omniscient. Sure, God can do anything in line with His attributes. So can McEar. Doing anything that isn't out of line with your attributes doesn't make you omniscient -- being able to do anything at all does.
you mean omnipotent... :wink:




This thread has become an argument about what people think their ideal god should be like, even presuming on abilities such as fore knowledge, infallability, the presumed perfection of His creation or whatever.
actually, he asked a general question about what people believe and i replied and he’s now proceeding to question my belief. this is not what i think. this is what i know to be true.




Hands up anyone who thinks they have experienced divine revelation ie are an avatar in some form?

If no hands are raised, your ideas about what constitutes a perfect diety are about as relevant and "logical" as your ideas of what constitutes a really great pizza.
whatever i state to be islamic belief has a proof found within islamic texts (the Quran and Prophet Muhammad’s teachings), which are divine revelations sent to Muhammad.




God is unknowable.
if this is what you believe about Him, then you do know something about Him, thus your statement is kinda contradictory. :wink:

as for my beliefs, what i know about God is what is mentioned within islamic texts. it is possible to know God, but it is not possible to fully comprehend Him. big difference...




boring.


love,
prof. frink

p.s. i cant belieive i just read the entirety of all this nonsensical, self-righteous dribble.
hey, you chose to read it :tongue:.



anyhow, kuilong, it seems as if others aren't liking this discussion too much, calling it non-sensical and self-righteous... if you want, we can continue through email or whatever... up to you :smile:.

peace...

[Martino]

if this is what you believe about Him, then you do know something about Him, thus your statement is kinda contradictory. :wink:


No, its not what I believe about him, it's what I know I don't know about him/her/it.

Including assignment of gender to a non-corporeal entity.

this is not what i think. this is what i know to be true.

You don't think?

Again, this is you viewing your own idea of a perfect knowable god, but people still attribute all kinds of abilities to their own idea of god, not all of which are supported by scripture. Just because you know it to be true doesn't mean it is true.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I agree with Rasheed. Just because God already knows what decision we will make doesn't mean that we don't have a conscious choice. We do. Furthermore, it's simply not within the limits of human understanding to understand how God could both desire for us to obey him or find him while already knowing the result. This doesn't stand up to human logic, and it's not meant to. That's how I see it. But if you believe that God is "all knowing", it makes perfect sense.

Just because you know it to be true doesn't mean it is true.

One would argue however, that the real 'truth' holds little to no value unless it is recognized, and therefore what else matters to an individual except for what the individual 'knows' or 'sees' as true? Even modern scientific 'truth' changes over time. Yet humans only treasure what they believe and discard everything they do not believe.

[Mr.Lum]

I think that God cannot be fathomed by men on earth. at least not entirely. thats why people cant agree on it and you have people arguing over if there is or is not a God all the bloody time. you cant fathom Him completely. if He could be, then people would have come to conscious a long time ago. I think God can be reasoned out of or into existance by anyone, as we observe here. for one person there is a "God" because they have made it so, and for the other there is not, because they have made it so as well.

[kuilong]

I agree with Rasheed. Just because God already knows what decision we will make doesn't mean that we don't have a conscious choice. We do. Furthermore, it's simply not within the limits of human understanding to understand how God could both desire for us to obey him or find him while already knowing the result. This doesn't stand up to human logic, and it's not meant to. That's how I see it. But if you believe that God is "all knowing", it makes perfect sense.

Well, I don't know, there's really not much I can say about this except to point out that every philosopher, basically since... ever (including St. Thomas Aquinas and other Christian ones) has seen the contradiction between omniscience and free will. Their ways for dealing with it are varied, but some of the solutions are pretty interesting.

God is unknowable.

How do you know? :P

[yoMAMA]

No.

Amen!

there's no such thing as "god".

[Atealtha]

There is something about this existance that we cannot understand. It could be the entire existence as a whole or why people do not do nice things. Whether you want to call it God and attach a gender is up to you. But you cannot deny it, we are limited in our abilities and are living in the wills of it/those/him/her/them.

That is my reasoning for the existance of God. When we admit we are this vulnerable, we can begin improving ourselves.

[Filiprish]

^ Good post...IMO. :wink:

[AliBabaIncorporated]

I don't think it's this one white, bearded dood who know's it all, etc.
Hehe, that reminds me, back when I was a kid, I had this image of God as a bald, reddish-haired dude with medium length hair and a mustache. Don't really know why, maybe cuz I saw all those pictures of Jesus with reddish-brown long flowing hair and the beard. Anyway, the first time I saw NYPD Blue, it scared the shit outta me cuz up until then, my mental image of God looked kinda like Dennis Franz with longer hair.

[Hiroshi2]

I agree with Rasheed. Just because God already knows what decision we will make doesn't mean that we don't have a conscious choice. We do. Furthermore, it's simply not within the limits of human understanding to understand how God could both desire for us to obey him or find him while already knowing the result. This doesn't stand up to human logic, and it's not meant to. That's how I see it. But if you believe that God is "all knowing", it makes perfect sense.




Exactly. God in His infinite wisdom knows a lot of things petty human minds can't comprehend. That's why sometimes I think human beings question God too much. We don't know a fraction of everything there is to know - but obviously God does.


We come up with the "Big Bang" theory (and the key to remember is that a lot of people treat it as fact) yet we don't even know everything about our own planet. We haven't even discovered half the shit at the bottom of the ocean.



Sometimes I think people really do believe that maybe if we keep on studying and theorizing, that we can learn everything there is to know in the universe, when the truth of the matter is, we will never ever know all there is to know. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with exploration and learning and broadening horizons, etc but you have to realize that there is most definitely a limit to what we know or will ever know.

[bluemonq]

We come up with the "Big Bang" theory (and the key to remember is that a lot of people treat it as fact) yet we don't even know everything about our own planet. We haven't even discovered half the shit at the bottom of the ocean.

Sometimes I think people really do believe that maybe if we keep on studying and theorizing, that we can learn everything there is to know in the universe, when the truth of the matter is, we will never ever know all there is to know. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with exploration and learning and broadening horizons, etc but you have to realize that there is most definitely a limit to what we know or will ever know.
you have to be aware of something. big bang theory simply says what and a physical how, not why. and also, the people who treat it as plain old fact are usually not scientists. you can thank your teachers and professors for that oversimplification. real scientists recognize that it is just a theory: it meshs with what we *do* know, there is evidence to support it, and it allows them to make some predictions. if something ever came along to disprove big bang theory then it would go away.

you also miss the basic point of science. it's not to find out why in the metaphysical sense. its only point is to figure out what, how, and now what. so far, unless you interpret the bible literally (which would be interesting, seeing how many versions of the bible there are), there's nothing in science that would contradict the existence of a god; after all, if god's omnipotent, he could bend the laws of physics if he wanted to.

[Hiroshi2]

you have to be aware of something. big bang theory simply says what and a physical how, not why. and also, the people who treat it as plain old fact are usually not scientists. you can thank your teachers and professors for that oversimplification. real scientists recognize that it is just a theory: it meshs with what we *do* know, there is evidence to support it, and it allows them to make some predictions. if something ever came along to disprove big bang theory then it would go away.

you also miss the basic point of science. it's not to find out why in the metaphysical sense. its only point is to figure out what, how, and now what. so far, unless you interpret the bible literally (which would be interesting, seeing how many versions of the bible there are), there's nothing in science that would contradict the existence of a god; after all, if god's omnipotent, he could bend the laws of physics if he wanted to.





Yeah but when you get into religious/spiritual debates with atheists, they love to say things like "well Christians are just completely against science because it disproves the Bible". No it doesn't. There are plenty of scientists who are Christians and it's not a contradiction.



Like I said, I think you pretty much agree with me on this - God can do and think things that are WAY beyond our comprehension so if there's something about the universe we don't understand, or something about God that we don't understand, duh it's cause we don't have the mental capacity to do so. We're like cows compared to the mind of God. And you know cows are dumb as hell, all they do is eat, sleep, and shit :wink:

[hooligan]

Did you know

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/hooliganucla/yellowworld/darwin_square_text.jpg


Booyah

[nola]

Booyah!

[Paradox]

Christianity and "god" is largely a western/middle eastern construct that I don't believe in.

[Anaestacia]

I'm amazed with the maturity everyone has shown discussing in this thread. There is no one overpowering voice or any degrading language used. lol or perhaps they were zapped away by the mods. Anyway, yes, I believe.

[relus]

Christianity and "god" is largely a western/middle eastern construct that I don't believe in.
Agreed.

[Jenny]

Yes. When you look at how everything in nature is so perfectly balanced, you just have to ask yourself, "who thought up of all this?"

[Tao]

i'd like to update my answer from not sure to i believe. I don't however care for organized religion. but i do beleive and pray to God.

[kimpossible]

I had to check this thread because I was so sure Tao was putting the moves on Jenny.

[Tao]

I had to check this thread because I was so sure Tao was putting the moves on Jenny.
oh ye of little faith