Hmmm... We 'must' place our faith in something so that we may avoid the possible consequences? It seems as though you aren't actually considering my point... We could just as easily not believe 'just in case', remember.
so why ur god? what if he's not the real deal? should i take out an insurance policy on buddha, nature and whatever other gods there are?osk said:LOL!.....My point proven exactly........humans will never be able to prove conclusively the existence or non existence of God.......since we cannot do this......we must place our faith in something.........It's like insuring a house.......we have no conclusive evidence that the house will ever be damaged, yet we insure it just in case something happens to it. Even though the chances may be slight, we would be in a much worse position if the house was damaged. So it is with God..........in light of what my buddy has just stated here.....we cannot prove the existence of God. But we can make sure that we are ready for the consequences if God does exist.
so did u studied the numerous other religions and have came to the conclusion that christianity is the best?osk said:Ok.....You asked why my God?...........For the pure and simple reason that Christianity is about what God has done for us, not what we do for God. Like I said before, we humans are absolutely hopeless by ourselves in that we have limited, finite minds. Christianity the one and only religion where one excepts God's salvation as His choice and His gift. All other religions are about what we can do for God, how we can save ourselves. Think about it.....if we can earn salvation, we are in fact telling God what to do.....we are saying to God u Have to save us because of what weve done for you. Is God really God if we are in control of Him? Many religions portray their god as almighty, yet allow for such control of the god to occur....a bit of a contradiction. Christianity is the only religion which gives 100% of the authority to God, and thereby the only religion which worships an almighty being. I said that we should ensure that we do not suffer the consequences of God'd exisitence.....by this i mean that we should make sure we are not accountable to God. How can we be accountable to something over which does not have complete control over us?
Since you can't prove either way, the only "valid point of view" is that of agnosticism (no point of view due to lack of evidence).Generator said:Surely by now we all know that there is little point in arguing about a topic where each participant has a valid point of view?
I've always agreed with this Gen i wonder why after 57 pages and countless other threads many people fail to realise that theyre not really listening to each other, rather too busy trying to work out their next rebuttle?Generator said:Surely by now we all know that there is little point in arguing about a topic where each participant has a valid point of view?
I dont think it's possible to equate agnosticism as being a valid point of view in this context - rather it's to an extent, just like any other.MoonlightSonata said:Since you can't prove either way, the only "valid point of view" is that of agnosticism (no point of view due to lack of evidence).
Sophie777 said:Someone already made this point. The reason Earth HAS life is because it is perfect for human habitation. Life only grew because of these simple facts. This is no proof for a God... yes if someting changed 1 degree there wouldn't have been life. But this evidence can also be proved to say that by chance the earth had the perfect conditions and therefore life formed. It makes more sense this way actuallyt. Can someone who knows about this point please explain it in a better way?
You did, but you apologisedsesquipedalian said:Sorry if i repeated what every1 else has already said!
Actually I would say it is the only valid point of view --veanz said:I dont think it's possible to equate agnosticism as being a valid point of view in this context - rather it's to an extent, just like any other [...]
Um that is exactly what we're claimingveanz said:An agnostic is (arguably) on firmer ground if they claim religious statements or statements about God aren't or cannot be satisfactorily justified.
I have asked logical proof, and none has been given. The way we prove things on this planet is through reason, logic and evidence. It is hardly a matter of inclination, it is the only way we can form sound arguments. If I told you the flying goat-God gorgamel kidnapped me last week, you would ask for proof, because you probably don't believe the flying goat-God gorgamel exists.veanz said:They might demand these religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method ( -- "the evidence" of what you call is needed for "a valid point of view"?) In a sense, this shows that agnosticism is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements and so becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof -- that is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism.
OMG!!!!!!!! A reason! Let us all bath under the actual reason for believing in God and admire fantasia for posing it before we attack itfantasia said:the world looks designed therefore there must be a designer similar to if there was a watch, then obviously there must be a watchmaker.