Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[veterandoggy]

That just sounds like a convenient excuse. Take people who don't listen to anyone else, who are only guided by their own morals, misguided or no. Let's say that these people sinned, and sinned greatly, enough to bring upon them great suffering. But no one in the world could give these people the message of God, since they don't listen. Thus everyone must suffer because of people who don't listen - no matter how hard they tried to spread the message "properly". I just can't see a God who so loves His people taking vengeance on all His people rather than just those who do wrong.

Taking it one step further, let's say God created these people who refuse to listen. Is he thus deliberately doing it to allow Him to make us all suffer?


I_F

if you call that one step further...

when the message is spread properly, then the messengers have no more accountability. and the whole world wont recieve the punishment, only that area. you didnt see the pictures of the cities after the tsunami had passed, which were levelled to the floor save the mosques? there were even a group of people that had taken shelter in the mosque and were unharmed.

and why do you end your posts with I_F? kinda makes me wanna end mine with VDog

VDog

 

[Ilija]

and you think i am not being punished?!?!?!

besides, i spread the message properly, but you chose not to hear it.

I hear it. I just don't agree with it.

 

[veterandoggy]

I hear it. I just don't agree with it.

in which case i have no more obligations on you.

does that count as a classic too generator? is that 1235 from me? cos i am interested to see how they reached that much.

 

[insert-username]

if you call that one step further...

when the message is spread properly, then the messengers have no more accountability. and the whole world wont recieve the punishment, only that area. you didnt see the pictures of the cities after the tsunami had passed, which were levelled to the floor save the mosques? there were even a group of people that had taken shelter in the mosque and were unharmed.

and why do you end your posts with I_F? kinda makes me wanna end mine with VDog

VDog

I didn't see the images of the cities, but I don't quite buy into the idea that the mosques were spared and that the tsunami was an Act of God. I am sure that people who did spread the message properly perished in the disaster, and I would hazard a tentative guess that the mosques were more firmly built than their surroundings, being House of Religion after all. More, I couldn't really say.

I end my posts with 'I_F' out of habit, really. On a different forum, I had a username with the initials I. F., and so I added 'I_F' as a kind of tag. That was a few years ago, and now it's habit.


I_F

 

[Ilija]

in which case i have no more obligations on you.

Wait if you have no more obligations on me, who will save me now?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

You do not have to be able to see something directly using just your bare eyes to prove that it is there. So again, the analogy is not relevant".

"You can prove that it exists using material evidence and logical inferences".

Your views are consistent with my argument for the existence of God. You cannot see God, but logical inferences (ie a creation requires a creator) tell us that there is indeed a God.

Hold on, one argument at a time. You just brought up the first-cause argument, which has been dealt with already. If you want to go back into that, let us do so.

The concept of God is a being who is all powerful and thus his attributes are beyond our capacity to understand. If science could prove the existence of God, then God would attain the attributes of a physical object in our universe which would be contradictory to his supremacy.

Assuming that God does exist, with those attributes.

Also as I have stated earlier that the arguments agianst this - ie if a creation requires the creator, then the creator too requires a creator and so on, are not relevant as God exists in a sphere which is independant of our universe.

No, that is blatant circular reasoning, among other things. If you want to go back to the first-cause argument, let us do so. Since it is your argument you can set it out and I will give my reasons as to why I believe it is flawed.

Science cannot prove the existence of God, along with many other things, because some things that require proof are beyond the grasp of humans.

If that is true, that does not provide proof for God's existence. Just because you cannot prove something does not mean that it exists.

Just because there is suffering on this Earth does not mean its because of God's incompetence or a lacking in his power. It simply means that there is an ulterior motive that God has, which is to test his creation to see if they go walk on the right path.

1. With respect, that is extremely far-fetched. Babies die at birth, people are set in conditions that govern their behaviour that they have no control over, people go through immense amounts of pain and suffering, the world is slowly being pillaged, there are numerous religions each claiming different things about spirituality and Gods. All of those points are at odds with the idea that God would "test" us.

2. If God made us faulty, then that is his fault, not ours.

3. People's behaviour may be 100% determined. There are arguments against free will.

4. What is the point of testing us?

We humans have been given a brain to make decisions out of free will. But it is God's test ( ie poverty, disease) which will test the steadfastness of his creation.

Refer to the above.

 

[Riqtay]

I recall having the argument for the existence of God before and just realised I have done it again. I have put my logical reasoning foreward which I believe to be correct. But everyone has the right to their views, no matter what it is.

I wanted to ask you about you dualistic view of God. The word escapes me, but the definition of what you are (a person who believes that there is no way a person ca prove the existence or non existence of God) is baffling to me.

You are somewhere in the middle, and thus are double minded in your view of God. So by this token, you should dispute the existence of God and the non existence of God.

If I said that God doesn't exist, then you should be quick to correct me by saying that there is no proof that he doesn't exist. I find that most baffling.

 

[veterandoggy]

Wait if you have no more obligations on me, who will save me now?

your are the only person that can save yourself now.

 

[veterandoggy]

I didn't see the images of the cities, but I don't quite buy into the idea that the mosques were spared and that the tsunami was an Act of God. I am sure that people who did spread the message properly perished in the disaster, and I would hazard a tentative guess that the mosques were more firmly built than their surroundings, being House of Religion after all. More, I couldn't really say.


I_F

the punishment people recieve relieves them of some of theri sins. the prophet muhammad (saw) said that not even a pin prick will pass without removing some of a person's sin, in a summmarisation of the hadith, since i dont remember its exact details.

you could put I_F in your sig, to save you the trouble you know.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well I believe even some christian sects believe in hurting themselves to relieve sin of themselves and others.... Crazy nutters

 

[veterandoggy]

Well I believe even some christian sects believe in hurting themselves to relieve sin of themselves and others.... Crazy nutters

yeah, but im not referring to stuff like slitting your wrists. i am referring to stuff like accidental injury, and sickness, and similar stuff.

 

[AntiHyper]

How come religion only originated some thousand years ago and none has came to be afterwards?

Because knowledge of the physical world and its workings (science) has stopped the forming of new religions.

Why not then, in this contemporary - modern world (1800 onwards) no radically new religion was created?

If god exist, shouldn't his/her godly act (eg. ressurection of a prophet) still occur into our current times?

 

[veterandoggy]

How come religion only originated some thousand years ago and none has came to be afterwards?

Because knowledge of the physical world and its workings (science) has stopped the forming of new religions.

Why not then, in this contemporary - modern world (1800 onwards) no radically new religion was created?

If god exist, shouldn't his/her godly act (eg. ressurection of a prophet) still occur into our current times?

because islam is the last religion to be sent down. and also other religions were sent to specific tribes or people, whereas islam was sent down to everyone, so it is capable of being the last religion to be sent down.

 

[withoutaface]

How come religion only originated some thousand years ago and none has came to be afterwards?

Because knowledge of the physical world and its workings (science) has stopped the forming of new religions.

Why not then, in this contemporary - modern world (1800 onwards) no radically new religion was created?

If god exist, shouldn't his/her godly act (eg. ressurection of a prophet) still occur into our current times?

Sikhism was created in the 16th/17th century.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I recall having the argument for the existence of God before and just realised I have done it again. I have put my logical reasoning foreward which I believe to be correct. But everyone has the right to their views, no matter what it is.

Yes, and I quashed your argument if memory serves

I wanted to ask you about you dualistic view of God. The word escapes me, but the definition of what you are (a person who believes that there is no way a person ca prove the existence or non existence of God) is baffling to me.

I assure you that I am often equally perplexed by alternative positions.

You are somewhere in the middle, and thus are double minded in your view of God. So by this token, you should dispute the existence of God and the non existence of God.

Yes, but I am not "double-minded". I simply believe that we cannot know.

If I said that God doesn't exist, then you should be quick to correct me by saying that there is no proof that he doesn't exist. I find that most baffling.

Yes, I would correct you. What's baffling about that? There is nothing inconsistent about it. I simply believe that humans cannot prove either way (though I believe atheism is a far more likely belief to be true).

However, again, I would still dispute certain conceptions of God, which can theoretically be proven true or false using logic.

 

[SashatheMan]

Even scientology is considered a religion.

 

[Riqtay]

I believe that those who don't believe in God appear to show wisdom and logic behind their convictions, yet in actuality they use logic only in certain situations to their advantage.

They argue that a creation requires a creator, yet dismiss the concept of God. Using logic, a creation (e.g a child) requires a creator (ie the parents). Yet these people claim to use logic, rather they employ the dogma of there being no God, associated with athiesm.

They may argue that there is no physical evidence to prove the existence of God, yet they cannot properly answer the question 'who created the universe?'

'No one', as an answer to that question, highlights their biased application of logic (ie they believe that a child requires a creator yet they dismiss there being a creator of the universe).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

They argue that a creation requires a creator, yet dismiss the concept of God. Using logic, a creation (e.g a child) requires a creator (ie the parents). Yet these people claim to use logic, rather they employ the dogma of there being no God, associated with athiesm.

A creator does not have to be a logical being, it can be energy. I think atheists only dismiss the notion of God as most religions/people conceptualise it.

 

[sparkl3z]

nobody can truely know what happens when you're dead, if he exists or not, it's just a thought, i beleive he exists or not, it can't prove anything to anybody, if you wanna find out, then you'll find out when you die, but heres something, some idiot wanted to know what happens so bad about if god exists or not that he killed himself to find out..was 25, he could've lived and enjoyed his life, but no, he was so brainwashed that he went and did that,this is old news btw, but what a waste is all i have to say on that issue..people should just make the most of what they have without getting too caught up in what happens when i die, what is god, etc, you'll find out one day anyway, or you won't.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

nobody can truely know what happens when you're dead, if he exists or not, it's just a thought, i beleive he exists or not, it can't prove anything to anybody, if you wanna find out, then you'll find out when you die, but heres something, some idiot wanted to know what happens so bad about if god exists or not that he killed himself to find out..was 25, he could've lived and enjoyed his life, but no, he was so brainwashed that he went and did that,this is old news btw, but what a waste is all i have to say on that issue..people should just make the most of what they have without getting too caught up in what happens when i die, what is god, etc, you'll find out one day anyway, or you won't.

Yes, lets get rid of all religion.