Does God Exist? (2 Viewers)

[Captain pi]

I refuse to read the entire thread. But these are some arguments:

Thomas Acquinas (1225-74) presented the following as arguments for the existence of God where 'E' should be read backwards )):

1. E an unmoved mover
2. E an uncaused cause
3. E existence which is based on a necessary existence: 'God'.
4. E 'that than which none greater can be thought' q.e. God
5. E design; which came from 'God'.

(4 is actually from Anselm)

SOURCE: Thomspon, M. Philosophy; Cox & Wyman Ltd; © 1995. pp. 56 et 46sqq.

 

[VonDavis]

sorry to be blonde but what does E stand for?

 

[alien]

the main problem with different interpretations of the Bible is.... it's translated first directly into old style english, words such as thou and art, and it has some interest sentence order. this is fine, but the problem is each when churches take this translation and plug it into modern english, so they might limit/alter the meaning of the text slightly.
EDIT: and what does E stand for?

 

[waterfowl]

.... it's translated first directly into old style english, words such as thou and art, and it has some interest sentence order. this is fine, but the problem is each when churches take this translation and plug it into modern english, so they might limit/alter the meaning of the text slightly.

OFF TOPIC:
I like reading the New King James Version....I think it sounds more poetic, and I love the sound of 'old' English.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

So remember that when you are debating on here...you may be arguing with someone who is actually a really nice person who you would get along with really well....

Very true!

 

[somechick]

original quote to which i retaliated...

then this is the reply to my retaliation...


That post wasn't even directed at me aye? Well then why the fuck did u mention my name, along with two others in the middle of an earlier post to which I retaliated? Why did you ask us to offer another opinion when you so obviously didn't want to hear it and have to put up with it?

Ooo, and very cute call about the animals... And by the way, we are animals, we are mammals. Mammals are animals. Animals are mammals...Ooo it's a vicious cycle.

4. that point you made makes no sense.

Clearly you're only here to do some bible bashing
And CLEARLY I'm here to make my point in regards to the topic question 'DOES GOD EXIST' - To which I say no. And to support my statement I have provided my reasoning. This is a forum, in which people are invited to show their opinions.

'... And not open your ears' ... do you think I came here to become enlightened? I think not. You seem to expect me to open my ears to your side of the arguement while you blatantly dismiss mine without any sort of logical thought. I don't accept your opinions as my own, but I can accept them as your beliefs even if I don't seem to show it because I'm so wrapped up in answering to stupid, unlogical arguements.

*rolls eyes*

Look, GO BACK TO PAGE 214. You will see who I qouted, schoolies 2004.
When I WAS talking to you, it was when I was reffering to you, ie when I said your name. Its a shift of audience.
oh, and I said EXACLTY LIKE ANIMALS. Can i put any more emphasis on EXACTLY? here: EXACTLY, EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY LIKE ANIMALS. one more time "EXACTLY".
Is that what you your call reasoning eh? Using profanities and making mockeries? Fine.
But all in all, I am sorry to have said anything that would offend you.

 

[alien]

OFF TOPIC:
I like reading the New King James Version....I think it sounds more poetic, and I love the sound of 'old' English.

yah that's the one i've got! woot!

 

[GirlGoneMad]

PEOPLE!

While I am open minded to the discussion of God, using Bible extracts in no way adds anything to your argument. That kind of reasoning is more circular than an obese Ubangi on a ferris wheel.

For example:

How do we know it is the word of God?
The Bible tells us so.
How can we trust the Bible?
It is the word of God.

How do we know it is the word of God?
The Bible tells us so.
How can we trust the Bible?
It is the word of God.

How do we know it is the word of God?
The Bible tells us so.
How can we trust the Bible?
It is the word of God.

etc.

Need I go on? Please please please stop quoting the Bible.


Small World
I just found out today that Waterfoul, who I have debated with on this forum, is actually a recently made friend of mine, and indeed a co-worker!

I was showing you why the bible is proof, proving the that bible can be used as proof!

 

[GirlGoneMad]

Bible extracts = bad, especially after you've just told us that the bible shouldnt be taken literally.

Some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, other parts are symbolic.

 

[somechick]

The Bible hasnt changed at all in what is said...all of it is in tact, the only major difference in wordings come from translation from ancient hebrew to english. Im sure in the translation of the Torah or Quran into English some parts of the wordings did not exactly fit in with what is said in the traditional language...it is impossible to perfectly translate from one language to another. But other then that the Bible from then is the same Bible

You see, there are so many different Bibles out there that terribly contradict what you have said.

There are many 'versions' of the bible. While there is only ONE version of the Quran, you find the bible in SEVERAL different versions, and by versions i mean each book is different from the other. The King James Version (which, I believe, is the most widely read today, and is the one that was 'approved' by the king himself ages ago (on that note, why should it be approved by him?). There is the Revised Standard Version, the Roman Catholic Version (RCV). New testament, Old Testament, what is the meaning of so many different versions?
Some things in one version are not exactly the same in others. Some parts were taken out. And this is very significant. I'm sure you would agree that one little thing taken out can change the meaning in a sentence. For example, (this is research conducted by a scholar, and not my own) Here is a minor change:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14 - AV)

The word VIRGIN has been replaced with "a young woman" in the RSV, to account for discrepancies.
For another example, the Protestants have taken out several books from their Bible, (eg, book of esther, book of judith ) and have denounced the Roman Catholic Version's The Revelation as "apocrypha". I understand that the two groups, Protestant and Catholic, are divided.

Moreover, the Bible was written by many different people. Mark, Luke, Mathhew, but not Jesus (pbuh). Each use different pronouns etc to address the speaker and they are not the same. So collectively they are reffered to as the Bible, but in truth, they are singular. You have the Bible according to Luke, according to Mark, etc, and these are according to's, and are separate, because each was written from the writer's own perspective, and was never inspired by God. They wrote what they heard from Jesus (pbuh).

As to the person who onced asked on this thread "do you not get that your prophet [Mohammed pbuh] was illiterate?", Yes we do. BECAUSE he didnt know how to read, write, and was never educated, gives more testimony that the Quran is God's word because a man who was never educated could never have "come up with that stuff" or 'made it up', because he didn't know how to read or write. There are many scholars and historians who cannot explain this.


"...If any man shall add to these things (ie the Bible) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

What a warning huh!

 

[GirlGoneMad]

Women and the bible

While some of us may have the sense to see these simple facts, hard core religious people (or hard-core anything) rarely can open their mind to even see the other sides (as some are afraid this is blasphemy or just too brain washed to see).
I think you can see the bible is at least human altered from its text (I mean it's so sexist, god is male, men have higher roles than women). It's so dated (does not have a problem with slavery, highly conservative views of the 1st Century AD/BC). This is enough to hint that it's been tampered with a bit.

Keen

Look at this

 

[GirlGoneMad]

You see, there are so many different Bibles out there that terribly contradict what you have said.

There are many 'versions' of the bible. While there is only ONE version of the Quran, you find the bible in SEVERAL different versions, and by versions i mean each book is different from the other. The King James Version (which, I believe, is the most widely read today, and is the one that was 'approved' by the king himself ages ago (on that note, why should it be approved by him?). There is the Revised Standard Version, the Roman Catholic Version (RCV). New testament, Old Testament, what is the meaning of so many different versions?
Some things in one version are not exactly the same in others. Some parts were taken out. And this is very significant. I'm sure you would agree that one little thing taken out can change the meaning in a sentence. For example, (this is research conducted by a scholar, and not my own) Here is a minor change:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14 - AV)

The word VIRGIN has been replaced with "a young woman" in the RSV, to account for discrepancies.
For another example, the Protestants have taken out several books from their Bible, (eg, book of esther, book of judith ) and have denounced the Roman Catholic Version's The Revelation as "apocrypha". I understand that the two groups, Protestant and Catholic, are divided.

Moreover, the Bible was written by many different people. Mark, Luke, Mathhew, but not Jesus (pbuh). Each use different pronouns etc to address the speaker and they are not the same. So collectively they are reffered to as the Bible, but in truth, they are singular. You have the Bible according to Luke, according to Mark, etc, and these are according to's, and are separate, because each was written from the writer's own perspective, and was never inspired by God. They wrote what they heard from Jesus (pbuh).

As to the person who onced asked on this thread "do you not get that your prophet [Mohammed pbuh] was illiterate?", Yes we do. BECAUSE he didnt know how to read, write, and was never educated, gives more testimony that the Quran is God's word because a man who was never educated could never have "come up with that stuff" or 'made it up', because he didn't know how to read or write. There are many scholars and historians who cannot explain this.


"...If any man shall add to these things (ie the Bible) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

What a warning huh!

Read this

And this

 

[waterfowl]

The King James Version (which, I believe, is the most widely read today, and is the one that was 'approved' by the king himself ages ago (on that note, why should it be approved by him?). There is the Revised Standard Version, the Roman Catholic Version (RCV). New testament, Old Testament, what is the meaning of so many different versions?

I don't think King James would be the most widely read today, most people don't like the "thou" "art" "thy""thine" etc.
The meaning behind so many versions would be readability - some people simply don't understand KJV, so therefore read New International Version.
KJV would have been approved by the King, because in those days the King had the last word.

Some things in one version are not exactly the same in others. Some parts were taken out. And this is very significant. I'm sure you would agree that one little thing taken out can change the meaning in a sentence. For example, (this is research conducted by a scholar, and not my own) Here is a minor change:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14 - AV)

The word VIRGIN has been replaced with "a young woman" in the RSV, to account for discrepancies.
For another example, the Protestants have taken out several books from their Bible, (eg, book of esther, book of judith ) and have denounced the Roman Catholic Version's The Revelation as "apocrypha". I understand that the two groups, Protestant and Catholic, are divided.

"""Note, for example, what Yusuf Ali says in his commentary regarding this ayah, that if the Quran were not from God, there would be much discrepancy. Unfortunately, I was saddened that, as I studied the Quran more, I found what I believed to be real discrepancies and problems within it. For example, fornication and adultery are considered sin, but a man can have sex with many slave women with no legal marriage status. Another example is found with the messages regarding the Qibla, the direction one faces while praying, which was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca. Also there is the tolerance and peace message of earlier revelation, but the command to fight all unbelievers in later revelation. Was I misunderstanding the Quran? Was I not studying it "with care" (a phrase Yusuf Ali adds in his English translation for Surah 4:82)? Was it perfect at the time of revelation, and somehow corrupted over time? How could that be? The integrity of textual transmission is one of the strongest claims made by Muslim scholars. Unlike other scriptures of Isa and Musa, which Muslim scholars claim have become corrupted, the Quran, they claim, has been guarded perfectly. So I was left with accepting, for the moment, that what was in the Quran was revealed to Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah."""

"...If any man shall add to these things (ie the Bible) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

What a warning huh!

Just a harsher form of copyright law

 

[Keen]

Some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, other parts are symbolic.

No I think none of the bible should be taken anyway.

Keen

 

[katie_tully]

Some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, other parts are symbolic.

So in other words, you people dont really know which part of it to believe.

 

[katie_tully]

Luke 4:1-13:
for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

Some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, other parts are symbolic.

Insert quiet giggle here.

 

[somechick]

I don't think King James would be the most widely read today, most people don't like the "thou" "art" "thy""thine" etc.
The meaning behind so many versions would be readability - some people simply don't understand KJV, so therefore read New International Version.
KJV would have been approved by the King, because in those days the King had the last word.





"""Note, for example, what Yusuf Ali says in his commentary regarding this ayah, that if the Quran were not from God, there would be much discrepancy. Unfortunately, I was saddened that, as I studied the Quran more, I found what I believed to be real discrepancies and problems within it. For example, fornication and adultery are considered sin, but a man can have sex with many slave women with no legal marriage status. Another example is found with the messages regarding the Qibla, the direction one faces while praying, which was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca. Also there is the tolerance and peace message of earlier revelation, but the command to fight all unbelievers in later revelation. Was I misunderstanding the Quran? Was I not studying it "with care" (a phrase Yusuf Ali adds in his English translation for Surah 4:82)? Was it perfect at the time of revelation, and somehow corrupted over time? How could that be? The integrity of textual transmission is one of the strongest claims made by Muslim scholars. Unlike other scriptures of Isa and Musa, which Muslim scholars claim have become corrupted, the Quran, they claim, has been guarded perfectly. So I was left with accepting, for the moment, that what was in the Quran was revealed to Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah."""



Just a harsher form of copyright law

Eh?
What are you trying to say? Please be a bit more specific. If you're saying that there are more discrepancies in the Quran then, please, go ahead, provide me with examples, qoutations, evidence. Dont just off-handedly say something without proof. Moreover, how does those two discrepancies as you stated prove your point if you had-one-but-didnt-even-mention lol?

Why should the king be allowed to change the Bible though? Just because he has authority does not mean anything. That's like the US president doing the same! Would you let him change the word of God?

 

[acmilan]

Is there a site that has the quaran in english? Id like to read it

edit: from what ive seen so far in my search there are also a number of different versions of the quaran

 

[somechick]

Read this

Thank you, girl gone mad. At least you gave me something to work with.


qouting from the article:
The Christian apostle Paul wrote: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness."* (2 Timothy 3:16) And the apostle Peter explained: "No prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit."—2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Samuel 23:2; Luke 1:70.
end qoute*****

Are you saying that men not chosen by God as his messengers had direct contact with God? And they wrote the Bible this way? I have to say, I gave you much more than one article with two arguments.

 

[somechick]

Is there a site that has the quaran in english? Id like to read it

edit: from what ive seen so far in my search there are also a number of different versions of the quaran

What types of versions? If you mean translations, that's completely different.