Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[sly fly]

according to everyone there is lots of ones, a christian one , a jewish one, a muslim one, a anglo one omg. what a place of gods........

Yeah but Muslims acknowledge that the God of the Muslims, Jews and the Christians is the same God

 

[Not-That-Bright]

One important point we need to understand in the first place is that the existence of God cannot be proved in the same way you prove the existence of a physical object. This is simply because God is not a physical object. Any physical object is subject to your five senses. In simple terms, you can see, hear, smell, touch or taste a physical object. This is not possible in the case of God, as He (swt) is a Transcendental Being [existing on a level beyond our sensual perception].

There are many things which exist beyond our sensual perception and we have discovered them. I also am unclear how this rebuts the idea that even if you can show that there is a creator, you cannot prove that he is still around...

There are people who argue that the only form of knowledge available to humans is experiential knowledge or experimental knowledge, gained primarily by the use of outer senses. This led to the belief that human beings are constituted in such a way that the knowledge of reality is always unavailable to them; and so it resulted in a renewal of attention to the everyday world of appearances. The knowledge of here and now became the only object of human knowledge and concern. Thus from this point of view, the project of seeking knowledge of reality behind appearances must be abandoned, because it is beyond the scope of human understanding.

This simply seems to be a cop out. I can say to you 'Unicorns exist, they are simply beyond our understanding'. Of course I cannot prove/disprove the idea that something might exist outside of the realm of logic - However neither can you, so it's just a pointless debate.

What we can do is to point out facts which lead to a constant and inescapable awareness of the presence of God.

Which is what the entire ID debate is about, they are claiming that the 'design' evident in the universe points to the fact that there must be a creator. However I posed several questions that you quoted above for example: "How do you know the creator didn't create the chain of events that led to the universe then just disappeared/died?" and you have not provided a rebuttle.

It is clear that logically we cannot rule out the possibility of more things existing than can be perceived by our senses or can be arrived at by our reasoning. As for Man, there are two dimensions to his existence: One of matter and the other of spirit.

Of course it's possible that there are things that will forever be beyond our perception, but are you trying to say that's a good reason to believe in God? Sounds like a good reason to be agnostic. Essentially what you are trying to do is say 'science perhaps cannot solve everything... so lets just say god did it and be done with it!', where as scientists are saying 'no, we don't know it yet... lets keep trying to find out'.

Reduced merely to the level of material existence, Man becomes a machine, or a mere animal at best. But think of a machine that rebels against being a machine; or of an animal that refuses to be an animal. That is what man is! What is it that makes him rebellious, angry, disappointed, frightened or hopeful? What is his dimension that gives him his imagination, his artistic genius, his creative urge? Why does he have nightmares and sweet dreams?

All of these things can be explained in mundane ways by science. You still even if you claim a creator created these things run in to all the problems I listed... I really do not understand why you quoted me if you wanted to go off on a completely new tangent.

It is not matter that does it; evidently it is his spirit that makes him so different from animals.

No it is his brain.

So to base our knowledge of the world and our philosophy of life simply on the material side of our existence to the complete exclusion of the spiritual dimension, is undoubtedly faulty. The strength of Islam as a philosophy and as a way of life is that it does not separate man’s material life from spiritual life, and that it seeks a balance between the two dimensions of human existence.

You have made so many unexplained claims.. such as that man has a spirit, and this is what sets him apart from animals. Seriously I do not understand why you bother trying to argue with me logically about things you claim are beyond logic.

We should understand that human spirit is a reality incommensurable with material realities, and that it owes its existence only to God. Thus dear brother, if we ponder over the phenomena of the world around us and over the complexities of our own existence, we are bound to conclude that God is the Reality behind all appearances.

This is just an empty claim. I ponder over the phenomena of the world, I use logic and do not go beyond that as it leads to way too many problems. I see no 'reality of God'.

The Holy Qur’an says in Surah 2, verse 164, the meaning of the following:

*{Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- [Here] indeed are signs for a people that are wise.}*

That is to say the external signs we see in the universe should necessarily lead a wise person to the Ultimate Reality behind it all. And that is how we arrive at the realization that Allah Almighty is the Moving Power behind all life and all existence.

Again, this is just empty. It's like me saying 'If you really look around and are wise you will come to the conclusion that unicorns exist'. It doesn't mean anything, if you're not going to base your ascertions in logic or on some sort of basis then your entire point is empty.

For God to be more than one, you imply that he is weak.

Why does god have to be weak if he is more than one?

Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power, or race. However, our human minds are often in search of understanding God concept in materialistic ways, although we are not capable to comprehend ultimate God. When the Prophet Muhammad’s contemporaries asked him about God, Allah revealed Surat’ul Ikhlas (Chapter Ihlas) which is considered as the motto of tawhid, as follows:

“In the name of God, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate.
Say (O Muhammad): He is God, the One, Unique. God is the Self-Sufficient (Who needs no one and Whom everyone else needs). He has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and there is none equal to Him.”

I really don't care what your holy book has to say.

The Creator must be a different nature from the things created, because if He is of the same nature as they are, He will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. If the maker is not temporal, He must be eternal. But if He is eternal, He cannot be caused. If nothing apart from Him causes Him to continue to exist, He must be Self Sufficient and Self-Subsistent. If He does not depend upon anything for the continuance of His own existence, this existence can have no end. The creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: “He is the First and the Last”.

God has always existed is a cop out. See you like to say creations require a creator, however for God you give him the attribute of being eternal.. so he does not need a creator. The problem with this is that I can then give that attribute to the universe and just say the universe has always been eternal.

Beetles and bacteria don't know right from wrong, they dont have what we humans call choice. Humans know how to control themselves, animals dont - I thought you would know that. The fact that we have the power to make decisions already proves that we are more special than animals. Plus we eat them.

Animals eat us.

You are here claiming that we must be Gods 'favourite' species because we have so many attributes which we think are awesome. This ignores the argument, in that if there is a God the only proof you have that he chose us over bugs is the bible.

Now why would we just be a side effect? If we were so unimportant, how come prophets, books and such were sent down to warn us about heaven and hell?

How do you know that they were all sent down from heaven? You need some sort of proof

Its propsterous to just think we are here for no reason. Everyone has a purpose.

More baseless ascertions...

If the Creator was only interested in making stars, he must have made many mistakes in the process. Like seriously, that's a massive mistake...and if we were 'unintended' wouldn't God have just erased us?

Maybe he just doesn't care? Maybe he was having fun making the stars, is aware that he created a species called humans but doesn't really care that much.

So that leave's us with the logical conclusion that we at least have a purpose and that we were no side effect of some wacko experiment.

It's not a logical conclusion at all, it's a baseless conclusion.

Let us say God does exist and He is the Creator. Do you find it appropriate for the creation to just become ignorant.

I don't think creations have any sort of duty bestowed upon them by virtue of being a creation... no.

God will be the one to take us to heaven or hell, and when someone does something wrong they seek forgiveness. Now picture a mum and a child. Good children will apologise after doing something wrong and be rewarded for doing something good. A mum feels proud when her child apologises learning not to make the same mistake again. But now God unlike a mum will never get tired of us seeking forgiveness, on the contrary He will always forgive us...that is we dont repeat the mistake on purpose over and over again.

You're making more baseless ascertions. Why must God be like a Mum to humans?

We dont know when we will die, but you would want to be prepared. The world may seem as though it has bllions of years in it, but whose to say it will live that long. A 25 year old man might appear to live till about 70, but dies at twety six in a speeding car. No one knows. Nothing is here for your benefit. All materialistic possesions that exist in this world are merely a distraction to test us. Your not going to die and take your house with you.

Baseless ascertions.... emotional crap....

"pain and suffering" are a part of life and are emotions you obviously feel. I wonder where did your feelings come from? Our brains a limited, you've probably heard that line before but its true, if our brains were infinite, we would know everything, but that wouldn't be possible, because then there would be no questions to ask.

Feelings have been explained fairly well, look up Biology/Psychology.

God knows why there are all these events that occur, but there there so deal with it. If nothing bad ever happens, how would you know what is good? There is a reason for everything, just because you don't understand them now, doesn't mean there not there.

Baseless ascertions galore.

Good and bad happens all the time. It's a test. If you think God is evil...and enjoys watching us go through pain and suffering would God be more excited roasting me in hell straight away. I think I'd be in most pain there.

Well I'm just offering possible suggestions that are about as logical as anything you have to offer. You don't know you'd be in the most pain in hell, maybe this is hell and he's just having alot of fun watching you pray to him while he plans your life of suffering. What a devious little God!

Although God created the universe, God is still absolutely separate from creation—to postulate that God was part of the changeable world would be to contradict the unity, singularity, and unchangeableness of God. Transcendentalism, however, postulates more than just an absolute separation. It also describes a relationship between the creator god and creation. In a transcendental relationship, the transcendent term (God) is absolutely independent of the non-transcendent term (creation); however, the non-transcendent term (creation) only has existence, meaning, or value in relationship to the transcendent term (God).

That does not follow at all. Yet again, Baseless ascertion.
I seriously still do not understand why you must play in the realm of logic and science?

To say that God is transcendent in Islam is to say that God is separate, distinct, and independent from the created universe, but that the created universe, though entirely separate from God, is nonetheless dependent on God for its existence and value.

BASELESS. How is it dependent? HOW!

Majority of religions are based on the singularity and unity of God. I find it quite impossible to believe that such a great number of people hallucinated the existence of God.

Huge numbers of people have been wrong about ALOT of things.

I pray to God five times a day - and am always amazed.

Awes0me.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Response to laura_beth's points, Part II

Creator argument

In the entire realm of existence there are only two types of things: created things and non-created things. Those are the only two types of things that can exist. When we look at man-made objects surrounding us, we see created things. We know they had a beginning, because we've seen them in production, or we have read about their manufacture, etc. These things are easy to classify.

Other things, like those that are found in nature, are also created things. We sometimes understand the processes that began their formation, but we also base that conclusion on the fact that they're following the law of entropy. Things are decaying, eroding, or dying. We can understand that they had a beginning because left to themselves they will deteriorate into something less than what they started. Now, this is not to say that everything that is eternal is not created, but only anything that is not eternal must be a created thing by definition.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist! [etc, etc]

Unfortunately, as enthusiastically as you explained that little argument, it is flawed. The universe need not have been caused (or "created"), since cause is a temporal concept and (as you yourself agreed) time does not exist without the universe.

Wishful thinking

No God means no person in control of the universe. Holding to no creation obviously has serious ramifications for all 'creatures' of the universe. Humanity along with the rest of the universe simply exists with no possibility of finding any meaning outside of itself. Human beings might concoct meaning and purpose, but having no external justification these might readily change to suit changing cirmcumstances. This indeed is what happens when people choose to live as though there is no God.

Firstly, this is a wishful thinking argument. "It would be bad if God did not exist." But obviously that in no way demonstrates proof of God's existence. Just because you want something to be true does not make it true.

Secondly, you should take comfort! Humans can create meaningful lives for themselves

Knowledge about God's character

There are those who have the view that the God who made the universe had to start with something. It has not been conceivable that God could not act without raw materials, no matter how basic. Understandably, questions arise like 'where did such material come from?' Some, perhaps familiar with modern scientific cosmology and subscribing to one great deity, power or force lying behind the existence and character of the universe, might still consider such a God one who had to depend on certain givens. Such dualism is not consistant with bible perspectives. The God of the Bible is not recognised as having any such limitations and is far more powerful, purposeful, and personal than would otherwise be suggested.

For something that is improvable, unknown and incomprehensible, you assert this God's characteristics rather presumptuously. Where do you get this information from? (Please do not say the Bible or I will scream.)

Competing religious claims

I believe that there was a creation. And that that creation was by God, and with no starting materials. This is extremely important, because i can now trust the Bible and put my faith and hope in Christ.

All I got from that was that you trust the Bible. But that does raise the point: Muslim's trust the Quran - what makes your religious text true over theirs?

Life matters

Creation matters. We only live once, lets find the truth.

Exactly, we only live once. Do not waste your only life worshipping something that does not exist to get to a non-existent afterlife! This danger is one of the several motivations behind my discussing this topic.

Learning logic

"It's also extremely stupid that you do not question your faith using logic and science." (anon)

Funny you say that, as it was THROUGH studying and researching logic and science that i came to believe that the world was created. I was once like you and then i decided to look into different theories and scientific explanations, and this was the most logical i could find. But thanks for your concern in thinking i am "extremely stupid"

I don't know what you looked at but I think you should take some courses in reasoning/logic and also metaphysics, so that you can apply the former. I think you'd enjoy it.

Most plausible explanation?

God having created the world is the most logical means of our existence.

No, because that is not an explanation. As posted earlier:

Creationists cannot explain origins at all. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation, because it is not tied to any objective evidence. It does not rule out any possibility or even any impossibility. It does not address questions of "how" and "why," and it raises questions such as "which God?" and "how did God originate?" In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.

talk-origins.org​

Childhood influence

We are all influenced as children, and yet we still all manage to make our own decisions as adults. You, for example, would have a non-christian influence on your children. I would have a christian influence. Yet, as adults they will be able to make their own decisions. We are not robots, you can't just program someone to believe something.

But non-believers are at an advantage in seeking the truth: we start with the position of neutrality and science. We pose the question, "what should I believe?". Instead, the Christian poses the question, "Why should I not believe Christianity?" It is a biased and unhelpful starting point.

Once again, we can't force people to believe something. We can tell kids what we believe so that that option is always there to pick up, but unless they personally have a realationship with God, which we cannot impose, they are not a Christian

I am not going to tell my children what to believe, I am going to give them the tools to make their own decisions (ie. teach them how to reason properly and to think critically).

I have no doubt that they will come to a similar conclusion to mine -- that is, "insufficient data" or "very unlikely."

Changes in your beliefs

Actually, I've been a christian for two years. Before that i was strongly decided against Christianity. Making generalisations will get us nowhere

That's an interesting fact. If you do not mind me asking, what made you change?

 

[sparkl3z]

that's what i asked her, she didnt tell my why, she just told me what...christianity means to her, but if you jump from why's to what's, it's not exactly making sence.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If MLS does one of his long replies to what last_chance said... This thread will grow.

edit: by the way, considering that alot of what last_chance said is directly derived from islamic scholars with years of experience, I hope people can forgive my sub-par use of language by comparison.

Hopefully people still get the idea.

 

[sly fly]

Exactly, we only live once. Do not waste your only life worshipping something that does not exist to get to a non-existent afterlife! This danger is one of the several motivations behind my discussing this topic.

If religion has made her a better person and has made her happy then how is that wasting her life?

There are two possible scenarios.

Scenario 1: Some people believe in God, others don't. They die. There was no God. Nothing happens.

Scenario 2: Some people believe in God, others don't. They die. There was a God. Those who believed in God go to heaven and those who didn't get eternal damnation.

Now tell me, using logic, what do you think would be the wiser thing to do?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You just did pascal's wager (again)....

The flaws

* How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the "Avoiding the wrong Hell problem". If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal's Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me." [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?

* God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a God simply out of convenience?

* If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your Good News.

* Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you're up to. Also, many Gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won't do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm'n'fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position : if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.

* Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don't just say it's in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any God worth his salt would obviously see straight through that.

* It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying "Believe in my God or He'll send you to Hell" (in fact, this is often the form it is presented in). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?

* It is often self-refuting, depending on the person's description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say "Believe in God, or you'll... erm... go to Heaven anyway." In such a case, it doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.

 

[sparkl3z]

have you been to hell to know what hell is? you're relying on a book that's centuries old to dictate your life, so it says angels are going to appear, where are the angels now, i don't see any angels in my house at the moment, where is your proof of the book, it has NONE.

 

[gerhard]

EDIT: SORRY GUYS IM KIND OF SLOW


that has been brought up a couple of times in this thread

its called pascals wager. there a numerous problems
some are outlines here
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w.htm

 

[withoutaface]

If religion has made her a better person and has made her happy then how is that wasting her life?

There are two possible scenarios.

Scenario 1: Some people believe in God, others don't. They die. There was no God. Nothing happens.

Scenario 2: Some people believe in God, others don't. They die. There was a God. Those who believed in God go to heaven and those who didn't get eternal damnation.

Now tell me, using logic, what do you think would be the wiser thing to do?

That does nothing to prove that God does exist. I plan to lead a life based on principle, and if (assuming he exists) God has beef with me then so be it.

 

[sly fly]

The flaws

* How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the "Avoiding the wrong Hell problem". If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal's Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me." [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?

* God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a God simply out of convenience?

* If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your Good News.

* Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you're up to. Also, many Gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won't do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm'n'fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position : if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.

* Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don't just say it's in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any God worth his salt would obviously see straight through that.

* It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying "Believe in my God or He'll send you to Hell" (in fact, this is often the form it is presented in). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?

* It is often self-refuting, depending on the person's description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say "Believe in God, or you'll... erm... go to Heaven anyway." In such a case, it doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.

Choosing which God is the 'right' one and which religion is the right one is up to the person and requires them to use their logic.

Even after considering all that, my question still stands. What would be the wiser thing to do?

 

[sparkl3z]

you didnt answer my question either.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Choosing which God is the 'right' one and which religion is the right one is up to the person and requires them to use their logic.

Even after considering all that, my question still stands. What would be the wiser thing to do?

Your question is now deemed retarded.

 

[sly fly]

Withoutaface - I didn't say it proves he exists. I asked what would be the wiser thing to do.

 

[sparkl3z]

the wiser thing to do would be to live your life without worrying about what happens when you're dead because the truth is, YOU DON"T KNOW, nobody knows, nobody ever has, i havent met a ghost that came back from the dead recently to tell me if he's been to heaven or hell.

 

[sly fly]

Your question is now deemed retarded.

LOL no. The refutation you brought forward itself has flaws. Who said God forgives anyone for anything? Who said that if you had led a religious life you have lost something - maybe religion made you happy?

For example: ''Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?''

Whether someone believes in a hell or not has no bearing on whether it actually exists. The whole point of the scenario is to pose a hypothetical that heaven and hell does exist. The athiest is meant to assume, for arguments sake, that hell does exist. It's not about the threat being scary to the athiest, it's about what would be wiser to do.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The whole point of the scenario is to pose a hypothetical that heaven and hell does exist. The athiest is meant to assume, for arguments sake, that hell does exist. It's not about the threat being scary to the athiest, it's about what would be wiser to do.

Yes but what you're completely missing is that beliefs are not something you choose.

 

[sly fly]

the wiser thing to do would be to live your life without worrying about what happens when you're dead because the truth is, YOU DON"T KNOW, nobody knows, nobody ever has, i havent met a ghost that came back from the dead recently to tell me if he's been to heaven or hell.

but if you die and there is a God, and then you're sent to hell forever, it wasn't exactly wise was it?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

but if you die and there is a God, and then you're sent to hell forever, it wasn't exactly wise was it?

But you can't simply choose to believe in God, and if you don't REALLY believe in him then he'll probably be pissed (i imagine by your definition of God). There are many problems, all of which were outlined and all of which you have yet to come up with a good rebuttle for.

 

[sparkl3z]

it wasnt wise, but nobody came to warn me about god or our "duties" to him, WITH PROOF.