Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[moll.]

If he is a just God, it would be unjust to let you be with him. He IS merciful, letting all the punishment of our sins be taken out on himself so he can save us from what was to justly be ours. He did it for you, only you won't take it. You would rather think you are better and you know better then the very being who created you. Seems a little ignorant?

That's not ignorance. I think you're mixing it up with arrogance.
And that's not justice either. I think you're mixing that up with favouritism towards Christians.
And he didn't create me. My parents did.

If any of the people dishing out the bible were actually interested in discovering if it was true, they would read it. Check out the history of it. See if the history in there matches what happened in those days (which it does, but check it out for yourself).

Just cos they make a historically accurate reference in the Bible that the Jews were enslaved by the Babylonians doesn't mean the rest of the Bible is correct. It just means that the author was up to date on current affairs.

As for the "emotional crutch" part of what was said, If you knew anything about bible based christianity, christianity is NOT an emotional thing. And being touched by the prescence of God just means God has saved us, not an emotional experiance.

So the fact that Christians pray to God more when in need of emotional comfort and support is sheer coincidence? Must be.

Seriously, does it make more sense that the billions and billions of extremely complex things that make up just a single persons body just happened by chance, or just evolved by chance or people got their personality and everything that makes them unique by chance?

Yes. It does make more sense. Because it has nothing to do with chance.

Wouldnt it make more sense that someone made it? I dont think humans are capable of thinking about things like eternity. It just doesn't click for us. Why? Cmon how smart do you think humans are? Smart enough to know that we were made by a total chance and everything just happened to work out absolutly perfect? And that everything that has and will happen was just... Chance?

If we're not capable of thinking about things like eternity, then how come you acknowledge that heaven, hell and god are for eternity?
Again, not chance. Simply time.

In a dvd made by Louie Giglio, he describes the universe as 'Indescribable'. For anyone interested in how complex the universe is and how HUGE it is, check it out. But he points out how God is showing off his creation by putting things like the Whirlpool galaxy, a galaxy 23 million lightyears away, at the core of this galaxy, there is a cross stamped in, its actually the nucleus of the galaxy. Happened by chance?

Well then your God's ego is far too big for his own good, showing off like that.

He also points out that Laminin, the major part of the cell that holds humans organs together, is in the shape of a cross. Not just the diagram but under a microscope aswell. And there is STACKS of these microscopic cells in your body, holding you together. Happened by chance? (BTW for people wanting to tear the crap out of this, I dont believe in superstition nor do i think that this proves God is real.)

I saw a tree the other day. It was shaped exactly like a cross.
My reponse: "Hey, cool shaped tree."
Your response: "OMG! It's a sign from jesus! His coming is nigh! Repent! Repent!"
See? I can make your views look stupid too.

Check it out for yourself, and see how extremely complex the entire universe and everything in it is, and how prescise it is, and decide which makes more sense: It was created for a purpose. OR. It was created by a total fluke of..... whatever was there in the first place(who put that there)/nothing. If it was not created by God, then what is the purpose of life?

Complexity is not an argument for intelligent design. You think when an engineer builds something he aims to make it as difficult to understand as possible? No.
Instead, complexity is an argument for evolution, because only the creation of a design over the course of billions of years, with various twists and turns in evolutionary genetics would create something as complex as we see around us today.

My advice to people going in circles over this(take or leave): Take a fresh appraoch as if you didnt have an opinion and check it all out for yourself, not other peoples opinions.

That's a bit hypocritical, coming from the guy who attends Hillsong and just preached to me that creationism is real.

 

[Dis Amrahs]

How about . . Energy, nature, universal chaos and chance that leaves us to make our own choices as individuals? If there is a god, i reckon he (or she) is nothing but the processes of the planet that we shrug off as ordinary. Still i wouldnt call that 'god'... not in the conventional sense of a sentient being watching over us and guiding us through our lives or monitoring our faith in him or even caring about it for that matter. No mention of vengeance, no universal code of morals, no truth behind life, just a chance to get your kicks and learn a bit through all life's visceral glory? Just my opinion, i have no intention to impress it upon anybody else.

 

[Dis Amrahs]

Its evolution that i'm questioning? How come to this very day no mutation that increases genetic information has been discovered

Axolotls!

 

[moll.]

How about . . Energy, nature, universal chaos and chance that leaves us to make our own choices as individuals? If there is a god, i reckon he (or she) is nothing but the processes of the planet that we shrug off as ordinary. Still i wouldnt call that 'god'... not in the conventional sense of a sentient being watching over us and guiding us through our lives or monitoring our faith in him or even caring about it for that matter. No mention of vengeance, no universal code of morals, no truth behind life, just a chance to get your kicks and learn a bit through all life's visceral glory? Just my opinion, i have no intention to impress it upon anybody else.

Yeah, that's not god.
That's just Mother Earth and the laws of physics.
But it would be far better to worship that than the conventional god.
No one would go to war for physics.

 

[Cookie182]

I have a few questions for theists, and I’ll leave out the label of my own faith as I deem it quite irrelevant. Now, these questions arise out of interest only. I don’t believe it is possible to change people’s views, but rather I take an interest in ‘piecing’ together a variety of thoughts to help with my own interpretation.

1) There is often a personification of god. Eg- He 'knows everything', ‘forgives’ 'loves' etc. The point is, what brings you to make assumptions that God functions with traits of intelligent humans? Simply, what I mean is why do we perceive him as a 'man'? Is this just because we project our own perceptions upon 'him'? Perhaps this is the most logical way another human can view God as we like to think that ‘he’ is at least our superior. The core of this question though, what convinces you that God has a brain/emotions/thoughts/gender? Can God still be a superior creator with omniscient presence but not function in a biological way? This will obviously become an ad infinite argument, as you could then raise the question that God created biology and hence is capable of functioning above it.

2) As faith and belief in God is widely spread through the population, it is generally accepted as ‘rational’, as many highly intelligent people are believers. It is included in many anti-discrimination acts/policies, that one may not discriminate for e.g. in the workplace on religious grounds etc. So it is widely accepted throughout society and we don’t view religious people as ‘stupid’ or ‘weirdo’s’ etc. But when it comes down to it, their basic justification is still belief. A connection to something unseen (although there has been communication with this entity in their mind). So is it any less rational for me to believe in ghosts or demons if I believe I have had communication with them? The consensus of society would laugh at me. Why don’t we laugh at religious people? My only conclusion is that it is on a large-scale, that is through numbers it becomes accepted. Yet, the same justification is applied to belief in any other supernatural entity.

 

[moll.]

I have a few questions for theists, and I’ll leave out the label of my own faith as I deem it quite irrelevant.

You called them 'theists'. Dead give away. My money's on agnostic, judging by the nature of your questions, but you were raised as a Protestant.

 

[Darnie]

1) There is often a personification of god. Eg- He 'knows everything', ‘forgives’ 'loves' etc. The point is, what brings you to make assumptions that God functions with traits of intelligent humans? Simply, what I mean is why do we perceive him as a 'man'? Is this just because we project our own perceptions upon 'him'? Perhaps this is the most logical way another human can view God as we like to think that ‘he’ is at least our superior. The core of this question though, what convinces you that God has a brain/emotions/thoughts/gender? Can God still be a superior creator with omniscient presence but not function in a biological way? This will obviously become an ad infinite argument, as you could then raise the question that God created biology and hence is capable of functioning above it.

genesis 1:27: "So god created humankind in his image"

so i guess that means we are kinda built in his image, that is what we look like, we resemble him. I'm not sure about his brain/thoughts, i suppose the only way we have of explaining it is that he functions the same as us; anything else is speculation really. I suppose people put him in a male gender because he is a "father god", therefore must be male. I suppose it could be possible that he functions above biology, but we cant ascertain to that.

2) As faith and belief in God is widely spread through the population, it is generally accepted as ‘rational’, as many highly intelligent people are believers. It is included in many anti-discrimination acts/policies, that one may not discriminate for e.g. in the workplace on religious grounds etc. So it is widely accepted throughout society and we don’t view religious people as ‘stupid’ or ‘weirdo’s’ etc. But when it comes down to it, their basic justification is still belief. A connection to something unseen (although there has been communication with this entity in their mind). So is it any less rational for me to believe in ghosts or demons if I believe I have had communication with them? The consensus of society would laugh at me. Why don’t we laugh at religious people? My only conclusion is that it is on a large-scale, that is through numbers it becomes accepted. Yet, the same justification is applied to belief in any other supernatural entity.

I suppose because it has stemmed from a time so long ago and has been ingrained into society. other than that i dont know?

 

[jess-i-k]

he better exist
i need him 2 save me in religion

 

[moll.]

genesis 1:27: "So god created humankind in his image"

so i guess that means we are kinda built in his image, that is what we look like, we resemble him. I'm not sure about his brain/thoughts, i suppose the only way we have of explaining it is that he functions the same as us; anything else is speculation really. I suppose people put him in a male gender because he is a "father god", therefore must be male. I suppose it could be possible that he functions above biology, but we cant ascertain to that.



I suppose because it has stemmed from a time so long ago and has been ingrained into society. other than that i dont know?

These are atheist answers. He asked for theistic answers. And aren't you an atheist anyway?

 

[Dis Amrahs]

I thought it was just that humans are so much comfortable with what they know... What is familiar to us. In that sense, God is easier to connect with if he is in that form? i dunno, im an aethiest. I also reckon, that image gives us something to aspire to while presenting the counter credibility in the physicality of his wrath... Some people i've spoken to reckon it is 'human ego' sort of like a superiority complex. Just putting it out there, dont bite me.

 

[moll.]

We could also personify God because it would be difficult to imagine him as anything else besides looking physically like a human.

 

[Cookie182]

We could also personify God because it would be difficult to imagine him as anything else besides looking physically like a human.

Just because I made the distinction and said "theists" does not give away my own belief. I can't think of any other way to direct my question, which is what I was after. Making the assumption I am agnostic is I deem a fairly general guess but why protestant lol?

As to your reply, I agree. I think that possibly we personify god because we can not fathom another 'being'- it is easier to imagine him as human (I mean imagine worshipping god if he looked like a caterpillar??) Plus, I think people feel comfortable giving him human form/emotions that go with it, as they seek a 'close, personal relationship' with HIM. Being male, I’d prefer god was female then haha but that’s a different story (also raises the idea of gender discrimination- religion is old and so are the views instilled in it. Males headed the church etc- you think they would have wanted to worship a woman?)

Some one get into my second question (a theist please- no point an atheist answering it). I think it is much harder to answer then the first.

 

[Darnie]

These are atheist answers. He asked for theistic answers. And aren't you an atheist anyway?

nah i'm not an atheist. i'm a lutheran. lol i dont know. i suppose i dont bother delving into that too much. i mean, whats the point of trying to figure out if god is above biological processes, there is no way it we will know; it is one person's thoughts against another.

 

[moll.]

Just because I made the distinction and said "theists" does not give away my own belief. I can't think of any other way to direct my question, which is what I was after. Making the assumption I am agnostic is I deem a fairly general guess but why protestant lol?

Orthodox and Catholic Christians don't question their religions. It enforces blind obedience. There's more philosophical leeway and freedom given in the Reformation religions, of which Protestantism is the biggest in Australia.

As to your reply, I agree. I think that possibly we personify god because we can not fathom another 'being'- it is easier to imagine him as human (I mean imagine worshipping god if he looked like a caterpillar??) Plus, I think people feel comfortable giving him human form/emotions that go with it, as they seek a 'close, personal relationship' with HIM. Being male, I’d prefer god was female then haha but that’s a different story (also raises the idea of gender discrimination- religion is old and so are the views instilled in it. Males headed the church etc- you think they would have wanted to worship a woman?)

Yeah, all the major religions were formed in heavily patriarchal societies so it's natural enough that God is a man, because in the societies which bred these religions, man was above woman.

 

[moll.]

nah i'm not an atheist. i'm a lutheran. lol i dont know. i suppose i dont bother delving into that too much. i mean, whats the point of trying to figure out if god is above biological processes, there is no way it we will know; it is one person's thoughts against another.

So you're a Lutheran who also believes in biology and science?

 

[Dis Amrahs]

I reckon thats a good thing though. I dont think people should subscribe in totality to any belief.

 

[drunkmonkey9]

That's not ignorance. I think you're mixing it up with arrogance.
And that's not justice either. I think you're mixing that up with favouritism towards Christians.
And he didn't create me. My parents did.



Just cos they make a historically accurate reference in the Bible that the Jews were enslaved by the Babylonians doesn't mean the rest of the Bible is correct. It just means that the author was up to date on current affairs.



So the fact that Christians pray to God more when in need of emotional comfort and support is sheer coincidence? Must be.



Yes. It does make more sense. Because it has nothing to do with chance.



If we're not capable of thinking about things like eternity, then how come you acknowledge that heaven, hell and god are for eternity?
Again, not chance. Simply time.



Well then your God's ego is far too big for his own good, showing off like that.



I saw a tree the other day. It was shaped exactly like a cross.
My reponse: "Hey, cool shaped tree."
Your response: "OMG! It's a sign from jesus! His coming is nigh! Repent! Repent!"
See? I can make your views look stupid too.



Complexity is not an argument for intelligent design. You think when an engineer builds something he aims to make it as difficult to understand as possible? No.
Instead, complexity is an argument for evolution, because only the creation of a design over the course of billions of years, with various twists and turns in evolutionary genetics would create something as complex as we see around us today.



That's a bit hypocritical, coming from the guy who attends Hillsong and just preached to me that creationism is real.

Attends Hillsong??? No... no i do not.. i wouldnt even if i did live in Sydney... Mixing it up with favourtism to christians? I know stacks of athiests that admit that is just.
So your saying just because one of ALL of the referances are true, the rest are false? little pathetic rebut...

 

[moll.]

Attends Hillsong??? No... no i do not.. i wouldnt even if i did live in Sydney... Mixing it up with favourtism to christians? I know stacks of athiests that admit that is just.

You may as well. Only the evangelicals actually believe in creationism.

So your saying just because one of ALL of the referances are true, the rest are false? little pathetic rebut...

No i'm saying that just cos three references in the bible are right, doesn't mean that they all are, as you're insinuating.

 

[nikolas]

Attends Hillsong??? No... no i do not.. i wouldnt even if i did live in Sydney... Mixing it up with favourtism to christians? I know stacks of athiests that admit that is just.
So your saying just because one of ALL of the referances are true, the rest are false? little pathetic rebut...

I like how his own points are flawed and dosen't reply to molls other points.

 

[moll.]

I like how his points are flawed and dosen't reply to the other points.

lol

I'm so used to not getting a response from these people when i raise a valid point (or mock their beliefs) that i didn't even notice...