Does God exist? (18 Viewers)

[Garygaz]

My opinion is that I can't offer an opinion because I believe it is impossible for any human being to comprehend something so powerful. I'ma have to deal with never knowing. I know it sounds like a bad argument but who says that god couldn't have created the big bang.

 

[SylviaB]

?

So you're saying the human races' petty intelligence in comparison to what potentially is the most powerful thing that ever will exist, stating certain theories about how they think the universe was created disproves this entity?

1. That sentence doesn't actually make grammatical sense.

2. FFS, I bolded and capitalised the word 'helps' so you wouldn't miss it, but noooo

3. For an omnipotent, "most powerful thing to ever exist", evolution is both an incredibly lazy AND sloppy way of doing things.

 

[Garygaz]

1. That sentence doesn't actually make grammatical sense.

2. FFS, I bolded and capitalised the word 'helps' so you wouldn't miss it, but noooo

3. For an omnipotent, "most powerful thing to ever exist", evolution is both an incredibly lazy AND sloppy way of doing things.

It doesn't even help. Why does putting method to madness disprove the possibility for a god?

 

[rant]

And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.

 

[SylviaB]

It doesn't even help. Why does putting method to madness disprove the possibility for a god?

Evolution is an extremely, slow, lazy and ineffective method for an ALL POWERFUL GOD to use. Not only that, it also doesn't NEED god. The idea that god is required is one of the main reasons people believe in god, but sciene helps demonstrate that he isn't needed.

 

[Garygaz]

Evolution is an extremely, slow, lazy and ineffective method for an ALL POWERFUL GOD to use. Not only that, it also doesn't NEED god. The idea that god is required is one of the main reasons people believe in god, but sciene helps demonstrate that he isn't needed.

That's exactly my point, you can't use our rationale of that being lazy to try and figure the logic of something infinitely intelligent/powerful. What would have been a viable alternative? Mega powerful human beings who control the universe around us with our thoughts?

Also, philosophical question of, 'what created space?'

 

[Iron]

Serious Christians are hardly surprised that there's no 'solid proof' for a creator. It's primarily an internal, emotional realisation that rightly has no firm place in science. If you dont accept that, then pls go away until you do

 

[SylviaB]

What would have been a viable alternative? Mega powerful human beings who control the universe around us with our thoughts?

Bible says having sex with anyone other than your husband/wife is sinful.
Evolution has primed us to want to have sex with anyone we can from a young age.
God is either stupid or a total arsehole.

And no, of course that's not a viable alternative. A viable alternative would be to create everything in one go, and without the huge inherent flaws.

 

[SylviaB]

Serious Christians are hardly surprised that there's no 'solid proof' for a creator. It's primarily an internal, emotional realisation that rightly has no firm place in science. If you dont accept that, then pls go away until you do

If I understandably don't experience this "internal, emotional realisation", then oh well fuck you you deserve torture FOREVER lol?

 

[SylviaB]

Can someone answer this question for me:


WHY would god create man, let alone the earth and the universe.

I have never heard a good answer for this.

 

[Garygaz]

Bible says having sex with anyone other than your husband/wife is sinful.
Evolution has primed us to want to have sex with anyone we can from a young age.
God is either stupid or a total arsehole.

And no, of course that's not a viable alternative. A viable alternative would be to create everything in one go, and without the huge inherent flaws.

Ah yes, but that is the Bible, which is quite lulzy, so you're saying a Christian god is un-viable. The god that I was saying could exist isn't necessarily a Christian one. I'm more thinking of an entity which is sort of the root cause of the existence of anything.

 

[Riet]

My opinion is that I can't offer an opinion because I believe it is impossible for any human being to comprehend something so powerful. I'ma have to deal with never knowing. I know it sounds like a bad argument but who says that god couldn't have created the big bang.

Who created god?

 

[rant]

Serious Christians are hardly surprised that there's no 'solid proof' for a creator. It's primarily an internal, emotional realisation that rightly has no firm place in science. If you dont accept that, then pls go away until you do

what can be offered without proof, can be dismissed without proof. you say it's all an 'internal emotional' realisation far apart from science (i.e. evidence and rationality and logic and reason). surely god wants us to love and believe in him? why then does he not provide tangible, irrefutable evidence to justify our belief?

don't give me the 'god is testing us', 'separate the men from the boys' 'free will' wank. in the old testament, the doubtful thomas was given the opportunity to touch the holes in the risen jesus' palms, marvel! at his jewish musk and bow down before! his salty rod of justice - why are we not extended the same courtesy? why must we simply 'realise' his presence while others are placed in the midst of it?

the christian god is omnipowerful, he is in all places at all times, surely he can pay all us non-believers a visit before he throws us into fiery damnation?

@garygaz

you claim that the christian bible/god is 'lulzy', and i assume you feel the same way about most other religion. yet you seem utterly convinced that something must exist out there. this is primarily my beef with the agnostics. you do not have access to the 'feeling' that Iron has apparently recieved, but you claim that [insert god here] must exist because it is impossible to know everything>?

well why can't we know everything? 'knowing things', history teaches us, seems to be inversely proportionate to the society's secularism. what makes you think that science will not eventually unearth the universe's mysteries? we've had more technological and medicinal advancement in these last century alone than in the last two thousand plus years. religion has existed for so long because humans will always be scared of the dark and death and of other people, because our fight/flight reflexes are innate, and our frontal lobes were 'designed' too small. it was a superstition initially contrived to explain away the rising of the sun or the fall of rain or the passing of loved ones, but now we are intelligent enough to understand these 'forces'.

organised religion once had aquinas and kierkegaard and descartes all the other great 'scholars' (though i must concede that they did believe that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around us, that humans were borne of dirt and ribs and that plants were green because it made them easier to look at; and thus knew less about nature and the cosmos than a modern child) now who do they have?

frail old men in chapels with beards to the floor and voices like mice. religion, people have realised, will not provide answers and they turn away, and they will keep turning away, from its bigotry and ignorance and corruption and repression - this is progress.

 

[Iron]

Can someone answer this question for me:


WHY would god create man, let alone the earth and the universe.

I have never heard a good answer for this.

Read Job: you have no right to ask such questions. By all means seek, but dont pressume that youre on any equal footing with your creator to demand certain answers and proofs from Him

 

[Kwayera]

Read Job: you have no right to ask such questions. By all means seek, but dont pressume that youre on any equal footing with your creator to demand certain answers and proofs from Him

How convenient.

 

[Iron]

what can be offered without proof, can be dismissed without proof. you say it's all an 'internal emotional' realisation far apart from science (i.e. evidence and rationality and logic and reason). surely god wants us to love and believe in him? why then does he not provide tangible, irrefutable evidence to justify our belief?

don't give me the 'god is testing us', 'separate the men from the boys' 'free will' wank. in the old testament, the doubtful thomas was given the opportunity to touch the holes in the risen jesus' palms, marvel! at his jewish musk and bow down before! his salty rod of justice - why are we not extended the same courtesy? why must we simply 'realise' his presence while others are placed in the midst of it?


[.

You wouldnt believe Him if He did. All the disciples witnessed Christs' miracles, yet they all failed Him in countless instances. Their faith always lost out to fear, doubt, greed and other worldly temptations. Look at Judas!

Christ was a real man. He was God made man. He literally died, He actually rose again. Upon ascension, the Holy Spirit was unleashed upon the world to fill any and all men who thirst for truth. That Thomas was satisfied is a testament to the reality of Christ and the reality of the redemption offered by His death and resurrection - Thomas had seen and believed, but blessed is the man who has not seen but believes - the man who is tuned in to the reality of Christ's presence in this world, through the parting gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tommykins]

hahahahhhahahaahhahahaha

 

[rant]

You wouldnt believe Him if He did. All the disciples witnessed Christs' miracles, yet they all failed Him in countless instances. Their faith always lost out to fear, doubt, greed and other worldly temptations. Look at Judas!

oh i'd like to give humanity some credit. if a sign was offered to me personally, a booming voice perhaps, a white flash appearing in my room or whatever declaring that it was god. I would (after checking that i was not hallucinating/dreaming/under the influence) believe in him and repent my 'sins'. Miracles must fit the context, don't you agree? we are not so shocked and amazed by the curing of leprosy or the casting out of devils these days, even bread falling from the sky would not cut it - an almighty command and a giant hand certainly would.

i cannot blame the disciples for faltering in their faith once or twice: jesus was the son of god and he could cure a blind man, why did he not, then, cure blindness?

why is god incapable of offering miracles that rival 'worldly temptations'?

Christ was a real man. He was God made man. He literally died, He actually rose again. Upon ascension, the Holy Spirit was unleashed upon the world to fill any and all men who thirst for truth.

it interests me that you use the word truth here. I do seek truth, Iron! Truth and knowledge and enlightenment, I want it more than anything. why is the holy spirit not affecting me? are you perhaps implying that the 'truth' is existent only for those who have made up their mind that it exists?

the man [must] tune in to the reality of Christ's presence in this world, through the parting gift of the Holy Spirit.

in other words, only those who assume the conclusion are redeemed?

you said before that religion lacks material evidence, and here you remind us that it is important to rely on faith than reason. when a physicist has his theories disproven he does not, for example, stone his opponents to death - he wants the truth and will find it through reason, the truth is tempered by discussion and counter-evidence. your religion and the religion of others purports to be bastions of such reason, but do not appeal to it in the slightest degree. imo, it's this aversion and stubborn denial that makes all theism such a primal and dangerous thing.

 

[Iron]

Uh, Christ gave us credit in the first place and we crucified Him... that's the point... God gave us credit/free will and we rejected Him

I think that this is an interesting point that non-believers raise though. I mean, to you belief is something external, cold, mechanic, Protestant. But Christianity(Catholicism) has presence - it's in the here and now, intensly personal but it compels us to external action.

In fact, on second reading, your misunderstanding seems to warrant no reply - but i'll carry on hearing my own voice (oh golly im lonely, pls someone be my irl fren)

Naturally God is capable of ending all evil - and we have faith that He will - any moment in fact! But He is intensly respectful of free will and, as a being which is love itself, wants us, above all, to find this love buried within us and follow it to the low door in the wall that leads us to the enchanted garden of love returned to our maker - the end of our insane yearning for meaning and a beginning of our sanctification, our preparation to be reunited with the father. This is the journey of our life!

We are all for Truth, my fren. The Truth sought in the lab is the same as the seeking of the spiritual truth - they all lead to Christ in the end. Naturally, we cannot find God through reason alone - otherwise there would be no place for love or free will; naturally we cannot find Him through faith alone either because our beliefs would be insane if they werent grounded by reason.
But yes, I emphasise again that God will not be found thru reason alone. The proofs are within you already. Reason is obviously helpful and important, but treating it as an end in itself is not what God wants; rather this leads to terrible horrors, nuclear wars, gas chambers etc. There's nothing inherently moral about discovery. You need that crucial, internal element of faith in a moral law rooted in love that is carved onto your very being.
Find that white rabbit my good friend and you will find your peace in this world

 

[Riet]

think not of the universe's history in terms of linearities. It is like the earth, finite yet never ending. When people ask what was before the big bang, I merely retort: "what is north of the north pole?"