Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Stevo.]

No i have no problem with his 'judgement system' if you never sinned you wouldnt have to worry

Your sin is pride.

 

[emytaylor164]

Salvation thru faith alone detaches morality from salvation
Logically according to your beliefs, you can do whatever you like, sin as much as you want and be unrepentant, unchanged, but you'll still be equally as holy as any of the saints or the Apostles just because you have that faith.
This isn't really forgiveness or sanctification, it's just covering up your sin and pretending it's gone away. Your beliefs are empty, hollow and worthless.

moar words

But if you are genuinly sorry for your sin you will change and be sanctified.

 

[*TRUE*]

Do you want me to go to hell? I mean, if I never find jesus, do you want me to go to hell then? Or do you disagree with god?

I agree with God 100% that i do not want you in hell. I want you to be the man God wanted you to be.
I also agree with God , that if you choose to live your life with yourself as God ( ie , having faith in your own reasoning and logic) that you should be allowed to spend eternity removed from God.
He wants you to be free to choose. Choosing him is the best ever I cant understand why anyone would reject God......

 

[*TRUE*]

Your sin is pride.

Its a mistake to judge a person. God says by the measure that we judge others he will judge us.
We should never presume to know another persons heart.

 

[Stevo.]

She is arrogant, and proud of her beliefs. These are displayed by her choice of words.

 

[*TRUE*]

At which point does the science of man take precedence over the text of the bible? Do you wear blend clothing? Do you associate with men during your menstruation?

I dont know what blend clothing is.
the science of man NEVER takes precedence over the text and spirit of Gods word.
Yes i associate with men ( how awkward????) I think i know why you say that.
Those commandments were issued to the Jews, before Jesus came. Same as blood sacrifices and certain foods....

 

[Slidey]

I think that's her biggest problem: her arrogance and pride blind her to the truth.

It wouldn't surprise me if it were by choice, either. An existential crisis is never easy.

 

[phatchance]

The flaw is not within the analogy, it's within the way you break it down. My point is this, within a religious context the methodology you are utilising is flawed, it's context vs. context. Superman can't fight Godzilla because they aren't from the same universe, science cannot disprove religion because religion is based on faith, a principal that can't be evaluated through science.

My machine analogy is beautiful and fantastic you capitalist neocons.

 

[Stevo.]

i dont think we are arrogant but do you think that been proud of our beliefs is a bad thing?

Only when you're a cunt about it. This doesn't just go for religion, it goes for everything.

 

[KFunk]

Yes, however as an example of why this doesn't stand up in a religious context and interpretation of the universe.

Let's say you create a machine, it deals with numbers in such a way that 2+2 = 5. You are the creator of the machine so you understand this, you also leave an instruction manual that says your faith in this manual will be tested, 2+2 = 4. Some people come to the machine, they turn it on, they see that over time 2+2 consistantly ='s 5 and therefore deduce that the instruction manual is wrong.

Who is right? Those using a progressive system of deduction, or those with blind faith?

Fair enough, but I still think it's worth considering the bearing of critical theory in general on things like scientific and religious discourse. At least science allows critical theory through the door, so to speak, in that it is willing to question itself and to change. Compare this to a significant proportion of religious discourse which is fundamentally resistant to criticism.

If you keep jumping back to more abstracted philosophical positions you will of course hit a brick wall where you ask: but what justifies our ultimate choice of critical theory? At this level it seems impossible not to beg the question and so we are rapidly beset by an arbitrariness which makes it impossible to judge and compare different philosophical approaches (scientific/empirical or otherwise). However, assuming that we want to assume a critical position I think that science presents as a more reasonable option because it is critical by nature instead of identifying a set of beliefs, drawing a line in the sand and claiming "that's it".

I don't know whether I have articulated myself very well, but essentially what I'm trying to say is that although you can criticise science from the perspective of a critical theory (by showing it to be uncertain, or underdetermined in some essential manner) I still think that such a perspective, by virtue of being critical, will nonetheless find itself better aligned with a scientific approach to knowledge.

 

[*TRUE*]

What is the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference? Is it 3 or 3.1415... ?

why?

 

[emytaylor164]

why?

I know i dont see how that is relevant

 

[Captain Gh3y]

But if you are genuinly sorry for your sin you will change and be sanctified.

Which brings us back to the verse from James I posted earlier; if you really were trying to be removed from sin you'd have to act that way. It would be an internal, sanctifying grace. This a lot closer to the Bible and earlier Christian tradition. Jesus suggested plenty of times that getting into heaven was anything but certain.

Whereas your beliefs suggest that your salvation (and everyone else's) is certain, and permanent (apart from losing faith). This is an external, 'covering' belief in salvation. How can you be saved and continue to live in sin?

 

[Enteebee]

My point stands, no matter what the mechanism for observance is, that is God. Therefore a small amount of scientific reasoning tells us a God exists.

It's not a consciousness... That isn't what observation means when they're talking about quantum mechanics. Neither of us understand quantum mechanics so I'm not going to comment on it, but the physicists who do definitely don't see it as requiring some intelligent consciousness so hows bout we leave it there?

Pointless. Opinion. No scientific value.

Obviously our discussion is somewhat philosophical in nature... you going to respond? For the most part what appeals to me about my ideas is that I require consistency in thought... I.e. if you don't believe in fairies because they have no empirical evidence why do you believe in a god?

The beauty of religion is that it provides a simplistic and all encompassing answer to every question you have ever asked

It's no answer more than a mumble is an answer. If someone asks me how I made a cup of coffee and I say magically I've no more answered the question than if I said 'burgharahrrrrrgh', unless you want to elucidate on HOW god did X? How did God create life on earth?

See I'd say nature and then begin to explain it as best I can, that is my answer... merely stating 'nature did it' is no answer at all.

Yeah, the entire quantum revolution didn't completely reshape our perception of physics or anything

It added a new layer of understanding really...

This is just ridiculous. My point was very clear. It's methodology vs. methodology and I explained that you could not have the rationale both ways.

When has anyone ever used science to prove science? We've never really (that much) attempted to 'prove' our philosophies of science, we've just used it. You might think science is wrong... but let's see how far that gets you in everyday life?

Or one might presume shut up. See I can do that too.

No... I had a point. My point was that there are many religious/other texts (i.e. Nostradamus) which people create wild confabulous interpretations for in order to prove them 'correct'. In the case of what you said it appears to be another of those and I'd use Occam's razor (least number of assumptions) to say it's probably just that...

 

[emytaylor164]

im off goodnight all..

 

[*TRUE*]

Which brings us back to the verse from James I posted earlier; if you really were trying to be removed from sin you'd have to act that way. It would be an internal, sanctifying grace. This a lot closer to the Bible and earlier Christian tradition. Jesus suggested plenty of times that getting into heaven was anything but certain.

Whereas your beliefs suggest that your salvation (and everyone else's) is certain, and permanent (apart from losing faith). This is an external, 'covering' belief in salvation. How can you be saved and continue to live in sin?

Oh! I see what you mean,
Well i believe you have to accept Jesus as Lord of your life. Living in sin without repenting and doing your best with Gods help to change is not living with Jesus as Lord of your life. Only way to the Father is through the son

 

[*TRUE*]

im off goodnight all..

night Em!!!!!!!!!!
Talk soon

 

[*TRUE*]

Gonna need an answer from a fundie, asap.

EDIT: Kings 7:23

im on the phone, ill write later promise

 

[darkliight]

To be fair, you can't make a perfectly circular bowl.

Edit: Also, since the world is only 6000 years old, back when the bible was written space hadn't expanded nearly as much as it has today and was a lot more curved, giving the value of pi to be 3!

 

[*TRUE*]

Gonna need an answer from a fundie, asap.

EDIT: Kings 7:23

A fundie? What do i call u then.