The need for GOD...

[SVRP]

Very good debate from both Quantum Quack and Godless, and thank you for your responses.
I must agree with Quantum Quack, though. How can you place limits on something that declares itself without limits? How can you categorize something that does not conform to any category? And how can anyone then turn around and say, "God is a man-made concept and not real," when man/woman cannot define this concept? Someone once said (I don't remember who) that man could not have thought of God unless there was a God to put the thought into man.

A extra bonus, a copy-and-paste section from a previous thread discussion:

Two Arguments on the Existence of God
The arguments below for the existence of God are just two of many such arguments advanced in the past by philosophers. They are presented here in a very simplified form, not as conclusive proofs, but simply as illustrative of the point that theism is highly defensible. Atheism, on the other hand, is highly indefensible. Atheism - the claim by a finite, limited being that he knows for certain that the infinite, unlimited being does not in fact exist - is the height of unprovable dogma, and has been abandoned by an overwhelming majority of philosophers. Atheism turns out to be a bald, unsupported assertion, as is the assertion that the universe never had a beginning, but always existed. Such assertions require a much greater leap of credulousness than theism.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
These are the questions that the Kalam argument deals with:

1. Did the universe have a beginning?
2. If it had a beginning, was that beginning caused?
3. If it was caused, then was the cause personal or impersonal?

We will briefly go through the Kalam argument by the sections outlined above (1).

1. Did the universe have a beginning?
It seems clear that if one claims that there was no beginning to the universe, then this is equivalent to saying that there have been an actual infinite number of past events in the history of the universe. The problem is this: actual infinity can be a useful conceptual tool in mathematics, but it does not seem possible for an actual infinite to exist in the real world. (A number that approaches infinity certainly seems to exist in the real world, but note that that number is still finite.)

Craig offers the following case. (2) Imagine a library with an actual infinite number of books. Suppose further that there is an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books in the library. Does it really make sense to say that there are as many black books in the library as there are red and black books together? Furthermore, I could withdraw all the black books and not change the total holdings in the library. In this way, actual infinity, if it exists in the real world, implies unreasonable consequences.

Another way to approach this question is to consider the fact that it is impossible to count to infinity. If we claim that there was no beginning to the universe, then this is equivalent to saying that the beginning of the universe was at negative infinity. But if that were the case, then the past could never have been exhaustively traversed to reach the present. In order to reach this moment, how many actual years must have passed? If the universe did not have a beginning, then before we can reach any event in the history of the cosmos, there has already transpired an actual infinite number of events. (i.e., an infinite number of years have been counted in order to reach today.) Yet this seems to violate the observation that it is impossible to count to infinity; in the real world, we can always approach infinity, but never reach it.

Two current scientific theories support this conclusion that there must have been a beginning to the universe. The big bang theory (3) implies that the universe sprang into existence from nothing an infinite time ago - that space, even time itself, "started" from a single point. As scientist Robert Jastrow puts it, "What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation." Another scientific theory is actually a law, the second law of thermodynamics, involving a concept known as entropy. It is one of the fundamental, best-established laws of science. The second law states that the universe is irreversibly moving toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy. For example, if you were to leave an open bottle of perfume in a room, the perfume will evaporate from the bottle and disperse in such a way that it will become uniformly distributed throughout the room. Applied to the universe as a whole, the second law tells us that the universe is wearing down irreversibly. But since a state of maximum entropy has not yet been reached, the universe has not been here forever. As theoretical physicist Paul Davies puts it: "The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state (known among the physicist as the 'heat death' of the universe) an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist."

2. If it had a beginning, was that beginning caused?
Since the universe had a beginning, it would mean that there is such a thing as the "first event". It would also seem that the most reasonable view to take would be that the first event was caused (4). The principle that something does not come from nothing without cause is a reasonable one. This is especially true with regard to events, which have a definite beginning and end, and do not happen without something causing them. For example, if someone were to observe a baseball flying overhead, she could reasonably state that the movement of the baseball was caused (by a bat, an arm, another object striking it, etc.); it could not have just "decided" to move. When we look at the universe, we can see that all events are caused by another event, in what physicists call the chain of "cause-and-effect". By contrast, God does not need a cause, since he is neither an event nor a contingent being. He is a necessary Being and such a being does not need a cause. In fact, it is a categorical fallacy to ask for a cause for God since this is really asking for a cause for the Being from which the first event arose. If we were to continue in this categorical fallacy, then the first event no longer becomes the first event; the previous event (namely God coming into being) is the first event, and so on and so forth forever backwards until we throw out the idea that the universe had a beginning at all. But since it was established that the universe does have a beginning, we must accept the fact that there is such a thing as the "first event." And this event, by the very nature of events, must have been caused. And this cause, since it is the cause of time and the universe, must have existed outside of time and the universe.

3. If it was caused, then was the cause personal or impersonal?
Prior to the first event, there was a state of affairs which can be described by the following: there was not time, space, or change of any kind. In that state, what does one really mean when he (or she - the legion of PC strikes again ) thinks of the "cause" of the universe being impersonal? Surely the cause itself cannot be from the universe itself, for it does not exist yet. One can possibly think that it was the Laws of Nature (impersonal laws of physics or math) that somehow caused the first event, for that is the only impersonal, immaterial thing that could have existed prior to the first event. However, the vague idea that laws of nature can cause events is faulty.

The law of physics decree that when one billiard ball (A) sets another billiard ball (B) in motion, the momentum lost by A exactly equals the momentum gained by B. This is a law. That is, this the pattern to which the movement of the two billiard balls must conform - provided, of course, that something set ball A in motion. And here comes the snag. The law won't set it in motion. It is usually a man with a cue that does that. But that would bring us immediately to consider a personal cause, so let us stay off that path and assume that the ball was lying on a table in a ship and that what set it in motion was a lurch of the ship. Still, it was not the law which produced the movement; it was a wave. And that wave, though it certainly moved
according to the laws of physics, was not moved by them. It was shoved by other waves, and by winds, and so forth. And however far we trace the story back we would never find the Laws of Nature causing anything. The obvious conclusion is this: in the whole history of the universe the Laws of Nature have never produced a single event. (5) They are the pattern to which every event must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. But how do you get it to "happen"? The Laws of Nature can give you no help there. All events simply obey them, just as all operations with money obey the laws of arithmetic. Add six pennies to six and the result will certainly be twelve pennies. But arithmetic by itself won't put a single penny in your pocket.

The only way for the first event to arise spontaneously from a timeless, changeless state of affairs, and at the same time be caused, is this: the event resulted from the free act of a person or agent. We can observe this phenomenon in our daily lives. In the world, persons or agents spontaneously act to bring about events (which poses a huge problem to the whole idea that humans are nothing more than conglomerations of molecules in motion, but we won't get into that here). I myself "will" to raise my arm, and it happens. There may be necessary conditions for me to do this (e.g., I have a normal arm, I am not tied down), but these are not sufficient. The event is only realized when I freely act. Similarly, the first event came about when an agent freely chose to bring it about, and this personal choice is the only possible first cause that is not contingent on any other causes.

In summary, it is most reasonable to believe that the universe had a beginning which was caused by a timeless, personal agent. This is not a proof that such a being is the God of the Bible, but it is a strong statement that the world had its beginning by the act of a person. And this is at the very least a good reason to believe in some form of theism. However, the parallel ought to be noted between this mysterious agent and the God of the Bible. Could it be possible that the Will that started the universe is the God of teh Bible, who introduces Himself as such (6)? Could it be possible that the immutable, timeless agent that created the universe is the God of the Bible - who claims to be the beginning and the end, who always was, is, and is to come (7)- the timeless "I am" (8)?


The Moral Argument
The Moral Argument for the existence of God deals with these issues:

1. Is there an objective moral law?
2. If there is an objective moral law, then what is its most probable origin?

1. Is there an objective moral law?
Everyone has heard people quarrelling. (9) Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" - "That's my seat, I was there first" - "Why should you shove in first?" - "Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what is interesting about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior, which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if he does there is some special excuse. It seems as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other person is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are. The fact that there seems to be some kind of an agreed-upon law - which seems deeply embedded in our conscience and has a say in what we ought to do - cannot be denied, assuming that we have not become dangerously deranged beyond hope. The issue is not the existence of this strange law, but the objectivity (i.e., that which does not depend on personal opinion) of this law.

One of the prevalent alternatives to believing in an absolute, objective morality is to believe that morality is determined by each person according to her (and his) own tastes and cultural background. We hear people saying things like: "Who are you to say what's right?" Others ask, "Isn't what you call the Moral Law just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?" The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. We all learned the multiplication table at school. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made differently if they had liked? There are things that we learn (such as driving on the right side of the road) that are mere conventions, and there are others, like mathematics, that are objective truths. The question is, to which class does the Moral Law belong? Living in a multicultural society, we are afraid of making any statements that might sound ethnocentric. Surely it would be ethnocentric for us to say something like American music is the only "right" music. But we must not confuse morality with these sorts of subjective, cultural issues. For example, would it be considered ethnocentric for us to say that the Nazis were wrong in committing genocide? If we were to accept the view that morality is solely determined by culture, then we could not make such a claim. According to their socially determined rules, their system of eliminating the Jews was entirely legal. Does this make what they did right?

Another problem with this relativistic view is that there could never be no moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring the life of Mother Teresa to the life of Josef Stalin; there would be no sense in preferring Christian morality to Nazi morality. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring both of them by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other (10). Also, if we were to say that the "rightness" of a particular behavior is determined by the cultural norm of that time, then we must, by that definition, condemn all moral reformers (like the abolitionists, MLK Jr., etc.) as evil, for they went against the cultural norm. We have grown quite familiar with the vague notion that morality is subjective and relative; however, upon careful examination, we can see that such a belief collapses on itself. At the Nuremberg trials, one of the arguments that the Nazis used in their defense was that they were operating according to the law of their own land. To that, a legitimate counter-question was raised, and it remains the question we must answer today, "But is there not a law above our laws?" (11)

Some adopt the view that the "rightness" of something is determined by whatever benefits society; and that consequently there is no mystery about it. Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have real safety or happiness except in a society where everyone plays fair. But this explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong misses the point. If we ask: "Why ought I to be unselfish?" and you reply, "Because it is good for society," we may then ask, "Why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?" and then you will have to say, "Because you ought to be unselfish" - which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further. If a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, "in order to benefit society," for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for "society" after all only means "other people"), is one of the things decent behavior consists of; all you are really saying is that decent behavior is decent behavior. (12) Still others adopt the view that morality is somehow coded into our genes through evolution to preserve the species. Let us imagine a situation where a healthy young man is given the task of murdering an innocent elderly woman, or else he will lose his own life. Now in such a situation, if we were to adopt the view that morality is determined by whatever benefits the species, then we would have to say that it's morally "right" for the young man to eliminate the old woman. In fact, it would be "wrong" for him to refuse to do so, because the old woman, in an evolutionary sense, can no longer contribute to the preservation of the species. Yet why is it that something inside of us feels outrage at such an act?

While the law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them, the Moral Law seems to dictate what we ought to do, not what we actually end up doing. In other words, when we are dealing with humans, something else comes in and beyond the actual facts. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us. (13)

2. If there is an objective moral law, then what is its most probable origin?

Following the conclusion that there is strong evidence for the existence of an absolute set of moral laws, let us now consider what this tells us about the universe we live in. We can observe the universe using the empirical methods of science; however, note that if we were to merely study mankind from the outside, as we study electricity or plants, by observing what man "does," we would never get the slightest evidence that we were aware of this moral law. But as we observe ourselves from the inside, we find a strange influence or command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. The question is: what is the source of this objective moral law, which urges me to do right and makes me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong? We have to assume it is more likely to be a mind than it is anything else we know - because after all the only thing we know is matter, and you hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions.

This mind-like Being, apparently is intensely interested in right conduct - in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty, and truthfulness. But at that precise moment when we realize this, we find reasons to be uneasy, because if this absolute "goodness" were impersonal, like the multiplication table, then there may be no sense in asking it to make allowances for us or let us off. We would be in the wrong. Even if this Being was personal, we are not in any better situation. On one hand, we agree with this "goodness" with His disapproval of human greed and trickery and exploitation. Yet we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness He must hate most of what we do. This is the terrible fix we are in.

It's notable to recognize that the God of the Bible specifically addresses this human predicament. Just when we look inward and are terrified at what we find there - just when we are tempted to ignore the whole thing and go on with our lives - Christianity asks us to face the facts. The Christian religion asks us to consider carefully what our condition is and offers the invitation to approach the Being from whom these laws came.

__________________________________________________
__

(1) For a more extensive overview on this subject, refer to Scaling the Secular City (J.P. Moreland)
(2) Craig, "Philosophical and Scientific Pointers," pp. 6-7; see also G.J. Whitrow, "On the Impossibility of an Infinite Past," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 29 (1978): 39-45
(3) For introductory treatments of the big bang theory, see John Polkinghorne, The Way the World Is: The Christian Perspective of a Scientist (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp.7-16
(4) J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p. 38
(5) C.S. Lewis, The Grand Miracle p. 52
(6) Genesis 1:1
(7) Revelations 1:8
(8) Exodus 3:14

(9) Paraphrased from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity p.17-18
(10) C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity p. 25
(11) Quoted by Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism, p. 61
(12) C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity pp. 29-30
(13) C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity p. 30

More food for thought

 

[TimotheusBenj]

Well, we can't see the wind. Wherefore, can we can we say that it doesn't exist? Yet, we know it's there by it's effects. Well, let's see if ther are any effects of God around us. Look at the acclaimed big bang theory. You might be able to bring up evidence of a cataclismic event that formed planets, but where did the huge energy force come from to make it? Atheist believe in the laws of Nature correct? Well, what of the Moral Law that seems to be in each human? No matter where you go, you find that we all seem to abhor murder, theft, rape, and I could go on naming crimes. The point is, there is some Moral Law that we all know. It's different from the other laws by the fact that we can choose to follow or rebel against it. It would be naive to think that the coupling of molecules would develop such a law as that, because there would be know need if we were only here to survive until another creature killed us or nature did so. If all creatures came from one comman ancestral being, then why isn't there another one that seeks to develop technological advances or hone intellectual thought. Why would be expect children to obey if they are supposedly a more perfect being than us because they should be a little more evolved than us? I give you these questions to dwell on. For, I pray it brings you to look at Christ without any biases. It seems odd that of all the religions, this one has become the target of them all. They seem the most peaceful when dragged off to be killed, and more shocking is that they show love to them that are killing them. It is a proven thing that the blood of Christians serves as a testimony, because they die not in fear but in loving faith. We all place our faith in something. God bless. Bye.

 

[Katazia]

Timotheus,

Well, we can't see the wind. Wherefore, can we can we say that it doesn't exist? Yet, we know it's there by it's effects.

Well, let's see if there are any effects of God around us.

Bad logic. We study climatic effects and trace them back to wind etc. You are starting by assuming God and then looking for something to justify your belief.

Look at the acclaimed big bang theory. You might be able to bring up evidence of a cataclismic event that formed planets, but where did the huge energy force come from to make it?

Why did it have to come from anywhere? Why can’t the energy have always existed?

Atheist believe in the laws of Nature correct?

Most do, but not all atheists believe the same thing.

Well, what of the Moral Law that seems to be in each human?

There is no such thing – these are simply survival traits that have evolved and made us a fairly successful species, although the dinosaurs lasted much longer than us so far.

No matter where you go, you find that we all seem to abhor murder, theft, rape, and I could go on naming crimes. The point is, there is some Moral Law that we all know. It's different from the other laws by the fact that we can choose to follow or rebel against it.

That’s called intelligence that evolved and made us successful.

It would be naive to think that the coupling of molecules would develop such a law as that, because there would be no need if we were only here to survive until another creature killed us or nature did so.

Again, there is no such law. It is simply a randomly evolved trait that appears fortuitous.

If all creatures came from one common ancestral being, then why isn't there another one that seeks to develop technological advances or hone intellectual thought?

Because when one species gains an advantage it tends to dominate and exclude competition.

Why would we expect children to obey if they are supposedly a more perfect being than us because they should be a little more evolved than us?

Because children they aren’t considered more perfect than their parents. Evolution can be destructive as well as constructive. Far more species have become extinct because they did not adapt than those that have survived. A child can acquire bad traits from each parent rather than good ones – the process is largely random.

I give you these questions to dwell on. For, I pray it brings you to look at Christ without any biases.

But Christ is only a fictional character in a fairy tale.

It seems odd that of all the religions, this one has become the target of them all.

Perhaps because Christians demonstrate a condescending and arrogant evangelical attitude and intrude into the affairs of others where they are neither needed or wanted.

They seem the most peaceful when dragged off to be killed, and more shocking is that they show love to them that are killing them.

The Crusades come to mind where Christians massacred many thousands of innocent people – all in the name of Christ.

It is a proven thing that the blood of Christians serves as a testimony, because they die not in fear but in loving faith.

This is called stupidity – to die believing in a fictional afterlife.

We all place our faith in something.

No, that is an irrational religious trait – those who can think clearly have no need to accept anything on blind faith.

Kat

 

[TimotheusBenj]

Timotheus,

Bad logic. We study climatic effects and trace them back to wind etc. You are starting by assuming God and then looking for something to justify your belief.

Well, you may see chart the climate effects, but you still haven't shown where you can go outside and look around you to see the wind. I don't know of anyone who can say, "I see the wind changing direction from the North, so I'm going to walk to the East to doge it."

Why did it have to come from anywhere? Why can’t the energy have always existed?

It may have always existed, but such an energy would have exhibited itself before such an event. The evolutionary and Big Bang theory stand solely on the hopes that millions upon millions of chances occured together. I think it takes more blind faith to believe that such chances occured than to believe in Christ.

Most do, but not all atheists believe the same thing.

True, but they all believe in the basic laws which can't be refuted, such as gravity, inertia, and so on.

There is no such thing – these are simply survival traits that have evolved and made us a fairly successful species, although the dinosaurs lasted much longer than us so far.

Why would there be any need for pity? If we were meant to only survive, then there is no need for the weaker creatures. Hitler thought upon these lines and even stated this in his "Mein Komp." Nihilism degrades humanity to a bunch of organisms that are only worth the supremacy they have until something else comes up and defeats us. Now that is disappointing goal for a so called species of intelligence.

That’s called intelligence that evolved and made us successful.

Again, there is no such law. It is simply a randomly evolved trait that appears fortuitous.

Again, random evolution takes more blind faith than Christianity. If we are just randomly selecting fortuitous genes, then sooner or later we'll just end up with superhuman creatures that just prolong their life in a world filled with hoplessness and pain.

Because when one species gains an advantage it tends to dominate and exclude competition.

Well, that is easy to state, if the world was always connected and all places accessable, but wouldn't their be some place where be locations where certain creatures would be sheltered from the progression of the human race. We find that we know little of aquatic and tropical locations, so it's hard to state such a thing as that.

Because children they aren’t considered more perfect than their parents. Evolution can be destructive as well as constructive. Far more species have become extinct because they did not adapt than those that have survived. A child can acquire bad traits from each parent rather than good ones – the process is largely random.

That could be true, but that would mean we could find many instances of regression in species, which doesn't seem to be so common place that scientists are running around raising them as banners showing evidence for such a claim.

But Christ is only a fictional character in a fairy tale.

Actually, there is historical evidence to back His existence. A Roman historian records information about Him, as well as the Jewish historian, Josephus, whom we get our information about the Seige of Jerhusalem and other historical matters.

Perhaps because Christians demonstrate a condescending and arrogant evangelical attitude and intrude into the affairs of others where they are neither needed or wanted.

Sadly, many do, but that is mostly in America. Here, after generations of laxness and lack of persecution, apostacy has risen greatly in the multitude of our nation. If you look at the true basis of Christianity, it is supposed to portray love and humility instead of hate and arrogance. I apologize on behalf of those who have done that, because Christ is also saddened by these actions.

The Crusades come to mind where Christians massacred many thousands of innocent people – all in the name of Christ.

That is a sad point in our history, but done not in the true thoughts of the faith, rather the thought of the Papacy's bank account. The Holy Land was a place of great value to them, both financially and sentimentally. They acted on the values of "God, Gold, and Glory" while mostly excluding the first. Christ came to give a "sword" but His sword was His Word, the Bible.

This is called stupidity – to die believing in a fictional afterlife.

Well, what of the Apostles. The first time they ran like cowards and hid when Jesus was taken before the High Priest. They didn't speak up when He at His trial, most didn't go to His execution, and they hid after that for many days after His burial in fear. All of a sudden, here's twelve men speaking boldly of His resurrection to the very people they had been hiding from! I don't think that's a natural coarse of action. All but one was martyred because of what they preached, and many they were always told to recant before their execution, which of course they didn't.

No, that is an irrational religious trait – those who can think clearly have no need to accept anything on blind faith.

Kat

Actually, you put your faith into your atheism in some form. You trust that it's the truth, thus placing faith in it. We all hope our spouses will be faithful. So, in short we all do put our faith in something

Timothy

 

[Godless]

Well, you may see chart the climate effects, but you still haven't shown where you can go outside and look around you to see the wind. I don't know of anyone who can say, "I see the wind changing direction from the North, so I'm going to walk to the East to doge it."

No! you've never witnessed the change in directio of windmills?. Or the direction a trees when the wind flows through it, or your own clothing, for example. Use your imagination, you've been given one, I see the wind all the time, have you not been to the desert?. I see which way the wind flows just by looking at the wind picking up the sand!!.

It may have always existed, but such an energy would have exhibited itself before such an event. The evolutionary and Big Bang theory stand solely on the hopes that millions upon millions of chances occured together. I think it takes more blind faith to believe that such chances occured than to believe in Christ.

Actually there's scientific evidence that space is moving outward, from a finite point, there's further evidence to sugest that a big-bang did accur than there is to find some mythical god, or even its suppose son christ, which was an illiterate nut case!. Though taken seriously by other gullible idiots of the time, and not by many however 250 years latter we find that the write about this dood, and make him some kind of god. Now that's a leap of (BLIND FAITH) to believe such rhetoric, without any evidence what so ever.

Again, random evolution takes more blind faith than Christianity. If we are just randomly selecting fortuitous genes, then sooner or later we'll just end up with superhuman creatures that just prolong their life in a world filled with hoplessness and pain.

This is what religion has done for you, it has warped your mind to look forward to death, because of your own views of hoplessness and pain, religion is giving you a promise of a better place of existence, hence once you buy into the crapopsychological mythos of religion, you are easily controled to attains such a goal, hell that's the promise muslims give to the suitside bombers, (ie 15 virgins, wine, heaven, allah beside you) that's the kind of shiet, that all religions kind of promise a better place, elsewhere because they can't obtain happiness and bliss here and now.
There's no faith in evolution, evolution is a scientific theory, however there's is faith, in the belief of a better life after death crap, only if you'r goody tooshoes, abide by some bullshiet book's mythological crapola, and the such, will you attain the bliss, after death, what a load of crap!!

Actually, there is historical evidence to back His existence. A Roman historian records information about Him, as well as the Jewish historian, Josephus, whom we get our information about the Seige of Jerhusalem and other historical matters.

Yea there's evidence such a dood existed, however if you really look into it, there were several messiahs, only this nut suceeded where others did not become as popular, but, look into it, and you will see, that jesus popularity did not happen till about 300 years latters after his death, hence the religious nut's of the day were looking for some mythological character and his name came up, (YeA!! UREKA) lets make him god, saith the writers and inventers of false religious crapomythological invention and create a whole new religion based upon this individual, Christians!! Hence there were no such thing as christians before christ, and it plainly got invented.

That is a sad point in our history, but done not in the true thoughts of the faith, rather the thought of the Papacy's bank account. The Holy Land was a place of great value to them, both financially and sentimentally. They acted on the values of "God, Gold, and Glory" while mostly excluding the first. Christ came to give a "sword" but His sword was His Word, the Bible.

Yawns politely, Yea!! Yea! right, the bible was writen by men, apx, 300 years after Jesus death, and if you were to read the scriptures you will see the truth upon jesus threats, to the unbelievers in him, just like any little boy who thinks has power over others, he threatens to damnation those who oppse him, and big daddy in the sky will see to it. Open your eyes!

Actually, you put your faith into your atheism in some form. You trust that it's the truth, thus placing faith in it. We all hope our spouses will be faithful. So, in short we all do put our faith in something

Actually you've got not a clue, what faith is!, an atheist has not blibical, mytholigical faith, however having faith in a wife, is whole lot different than having faith, in invisible, unprovable, god. Having faith that the computer will tipe out this message, is a lot different than having faith, in an so called (after life) which makes no sense what so ever. Faith in the mythological sense is just the acceptance of others assertions, faith in scientific theory, or fact can be proven by oneself, if one goes through the trouble to do the experiment or research, what ever it takes. However faith in an unprovable existence of an entity of which there's no evidence of existence is blind faith!.


Godless.

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

frankly I'm more concerned about her/him/your name- "=sputniK-CL=". It sounds a little too commie for my liking if you know what I mean...

 

[Quantum Quack]

A while ago I wrote this little ditty to show in an amusing way my thoughts about this subject.....I hope you have a smile at it....

In search for G

Once upon a time in a not to distant present, lived a man that every one wanted to find and understand. His Name started with the letter “G” and some called him Gravity and some called him God.

For thousands of years people everywhere have been looking for him. The scientist, the physicist have spent millions of hours in the pursuit of “G”. The religious people have spent thousands of years defending him and ideologically supporting his existence.

All they knew was that “G” could be felt and not seen and that he was a very attractive proposition for finding him made one like him. If one could feel his attraction one was a part of him. And of course through out reality one could feel his pull. But the attraction was from all directions and we all stumble trying to understand where to start looking for “G” was every where. and no where at the same time.

The scientists called him a weak force and the religious people called him the strongest force. A lot of people couldn’t care either way and couldn’t decide what he was.

But any way, “G” was pretty smart because he knew that if he stayed out of sight and kept every one chasing the wrong tail he would stay unknown for longer but he also knew that one day some one is going to find him and he will become known.

He knew that the best way to hide was in fact not to, in fact he knew that if he put the answer right in front of the people looking for him that they would never find him.

Then one day people started to realise the truth. That the “G” they were chasing was actually themselves and that when they looked in the mirror they could feel him by simply feeling themselves. For “G” could only be felt and not seen.

 

[Godless]

Then I looked to the mirror, and found "G", is I!.

Good Quantum, I liked that one.

Godless.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And God sayith..."Follow me"..........and they did

 

[TimotheusBenj]

I must ask you, do you know what science is? Science is the study of what man can get samples of in this universe. If you boil down all their advanced speeches, you find that they say something to the effect of, "I placed 'A' in a 300 degree flame and got B," or, "I placed C in -x degree temperature and D was produced." That's the jist of what they can do. We notice that God isn't part of this universe, because no one seems to be able to attain any evidence of this world. That means He either doesn't exist or that He does but is a separate entity outside of the boundaries of our universe. Well, I know from experience that the latter is true. He's real, and He doesn't have to rely on statements of me, you, or anyone to state this to be true. You may say that I only have bought into a sad tale because I can't enjoy this world, and I'm hoping for reprieve in the next. It is true that this one saddens me, but I realizd that no matter what I did for enjoyment there was something I couldn't attain. It's not that I have a bad life, because I actually have sufficient finances, a great family, and plenty of talents that I can use. I speak not to brag, but to show that I'm not believing in something because I have nothing in this world, rather because I had those things. No matter what we are all going to die, that is true. Yet, I wonder if you can look at that prospect with a bright outlook. For, in the end, what do you have? You may have health, wealth, and plenty of friends, but I don't think it's going to keep you from dying. You can't tell me without a doubt that Heaven and Hell are figments of our imagination, because you don't know. I don't see you producing evidence to support such claims that it is a fairy tale. How do you look at death? Is it a comfort to you that you think it is nothing? Just a meaningless end? Are you sure you want to take the chance of not seeing if this person, whom you call warped minded and gullible, is telling the truth. What to I have to gain? I don't think I become famous, rich, or more powerful in any aspect if you accept or reject what I say. Look at the disciples. What did they have to gain in telling Christ's gift to the world? 11 of the 12 were brutually murdered, while the twelvth was exiled. They didn't get anything from it, in fact they were hated by those who used to be their closest friends and family. The Aposte Paul was of the highest groups in society, yet he gave all that up to tell of Jesus, whom he had once persecuted. It may not seem like much, but there must have been something to get them to give up everything in this world besides fairy tales. They must have seen something other than a figment of their imagination to go doing something that promised nothing but pain in this world. Also, why make a God that told them to go about life living like He does, perfectly and blamelessly? If I was going to make a god, surely I would make one that would have me revenge myself if I'm wronged, do anything to receive gain, and always give me whatever I want. Yet, I don't serve a God like that. I will apologize for the actions of Christians whom don't seem to be living what they're preaching, but that is something that was always seen. I'm not excusing them, yet I want to tell you that the Apostles saw it in their day. They had to constantly go up against people trying to dillude Christ's messages. That's why Christians should read the Bible to find out what they are really saying they belive, because many don't know. You might want to look at what the Bible says, and even compare what it says with what historical evidence shows. A good book on this is, "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist and an Investigative reporter who wanted to get to see if Christ could possibly be real. He allows the reader to take the evidence he finds and make their own decision, so there's no pressure to make you accept or reject what he finds. Please, just check it out before you go knocking Christ and Christianity. He wasn't settling for "the Bible tells me so" answers.

Here's a site to a review of the book: http://prayerfoundation.org/books/book_review_case_for_christ.htm

God bless,
Timothy

 

[TimotheusBenj]

No! you've never witnessed the change in directio of windmills?. Or the direction a trees when the wind flows through it, or your own clothing, for example. Use your imagination, you've been given one, I see the wind all the time, have you not been to the desert?. I see which way the wind flows just by looking at the wind picking up the sand!!.

Actually, what I was saying is that you can't look at wind directly. Sure, you can see when it picks up things, but can you see that which is picking up the objects? I have enough of an imagination to put some color to it, but in truth we can't truly see what it looks like because it, by itself, is invisible.

Yea there's evidence such a dood existed, however if you really look into it, there were several messiahs, only this nut suceeded where others did not become as popular, but, look into it, and you will see, that jesus popularity did not happen till about 300 years latters after his death, hence the religious nut's of the day were looking for some mythological character and his name came up, (YeA!! UREKA) lets make him god, saith the writers and inventers of false religious crapomythological invention and create a whole new religion based upon this individual, Christians!! Hence there were no such thing as christians before christ, and it plainly got invented.

The only oddity is the fact that they picked a carpenter from the middle of nowhere to be their King. Especially with that He said. "You have heard, 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' Verily, I say unto, when someone strikes you on the cheeck, turn the other cheek." That doesn't sound like something we would want to do, yet they gave their lives for Him.

Yawns politely, Yea!! Yea! right, the bible was writen by men, apx, 300 years after Jesus death, and if you were to read the scriptures you will see the truth upon jesus threats, to the unbelievers in him, just like any little boy who thinks has power over others, he threatens to damnation those who oppse him, and big daddy in the sky will see to it. Open your eyes!

Actually, historical evidence supports that the gospels were written apx. 3-30 years after His death AND resurrection. You don't have the body to prove He is still dead somewhere. With such weight on the Romans and Jews, they would have wanted that body found. Also, the soldiers would have had to be killed for failing to do their duty, as the Law demanded. Even if it was written later, people take Alexander the Great's biography to be truth and it was written 400 to 500 years after his death! Now, that's a considerably longer time than that of the Gospels.

God bless,
Timothy

 

[TimotheusBenj]

P.S.: He constantly followed Jehovah's (God's) example. In Ezekiel 18 Jehovah says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye."

Also, Jesus says in John 3:16, "For God so loves the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." He didn't want anyone to die, so He gave up His most precious treasure, His Son. I think that's love that is above that we men normally have. He didn't want you to suffer a greater pain than what this world would give you, so why do you knock Him so?

God bless,
Timothy

 

[arnoldmiro]

The last time a major concordance happened was about 2000 years ago and that was a real mess but served a purpose all the same.

A mess....why?
A guy ended up on a cross dead as a young man and his parents lost a son..... that's why.

Do you beleive that God is perfect ? I do myself.
Do you beleive that God is independent ? Which means that he needs nothing to keep his presence, nothing weakens him, and he is eternal has no beginning and has no end ?
If so, althogh I beleive that you have a mature way of thinking, I am very much surprised in your beleif that God had a son !!
Why would he have a son ? does he need a son to inherit his kingdom ?
Humans have sons and daughters to keep the race. Is God mortal that he needs to keep his race ?
The commen weakness of all normal humans is their children, we are all ready to sacrify our lives for our children's. How would God, and his the PERFECT, sacrifies his child for humans who are drawing in their sins ?
Does this make sense ?
If we assume that we have a God and his Son, who rose from the dead and he is now aside his father, will there be a small possibility that the Father and Son become indifferent. We are in a situation of two Gods the father and the Son.
How would it be if the father wants the sun to rise from the east while the Son wants it to rise from the west ?
The possibility of having a rebel in heaven is quite high.
My dear friend, having a father and a son as gods is nonsense, there should be only one god so that the cosmos be the way it is.
God never needs a son or a wife as God is eternal.
If you need to know the truth about the right religon, search and if your are keen to know, true God will guide you.

 

[(Q)]

Do you beleive that God is perfect ?

Would your use of 'perfect' be that of a noun, verb or adjective?

If so, althogh I beleive that you have a mature way of thinking, I am very much surprised in your beleif that God had a son !!

Interesting that your religion and theirs differs so much although both claim to have knowledge of god.

So, one must ask, who is god lying to and why would he lie? Is that perfection?

 

[arnoldmiro]

Do you beleive that God is perfect ?

Would your use of 'perfect' be that of a noun, verb or adjective?

If so, althogh I beleive that you have a mature way of thinking, I am very much surprised in your beleif that God had a son !!

Interesting that your religion and theirs differs so much although both claim to have knowledge of god.

So, one must ask, who is god lying to and why would he lie? Is that perfection?

My dear friend,
When I said God is perfect ( I mentioned perfect as an adjective ).
A lying God !!!
If God is lying, then he would not be perfect; accordingly, he would not be worth worshipping.
If a man told you that God has a wife, and he has not, in that case who would be lying? The one who told you that or God himself ?
The obvious answer that God did not lie, but the man who told you that he has a wife is the lyer.
Our mind is our tool of understanding.
What are the characteristics of God that makes him worth worshipping ?
He should be eternal : If he was created by someone else, then the one who created him deserves to be worshipped.
If he is mortal, then one day he will die, then why should I worship him if death can beat him.
He should be strong : On earth a weak king never survive, what about the cosmos, how would a weak God keep it running the way it is ?
One can know God through his creatures. Hence, it will be a limited knowlage.
Accordingly, we shall need God to contact us to tell us more about himself and whey we were created.
If a man said that he is God's messenger. Would one beleive him unless one asks him what is your evidence ?
He must have a miracle to prove that he is the messenger of God.
If you recognise the miracle then the man is not lying, and he is the messenger of God. Then you should listen to what he says, and comply with his instructuion, as then you will be obaying God's orders.
One must ask, what is the miracle that still excists ? a miracle that you can see and recognise ?
Search for it and you shall find it.
Peace be upon you.

 

[cole grey]

re:Q25's post-

I have come to the conclusion that we needed a harsh environment, and the pressures and complexities it includes, to develop our level of consciousness.
The fact that we don't have world peace, and a livable planet, is our responsibility however because, once we developed this consciousness, we didn't follow it's reasoning, and prefer to live as animals. This will change someday, I hope, and then all those prayers will make sense. EDIT- they make sense now, on some level, when a person is helped and not harmed by someone else, who takes the time or has the courage to be conscious.

 

[(Q)]

If God is lying, then he would not be perfect; accordingly, he would not be worth worshipping.

Then it appears that you and every other theist have a big problem on your hands.

If a man told you that God has a wife, and he has not, in that case who would be lying? The one who told you that or God himself ? The obvious answer that God did not lie, but the man who told you that he has a wife is the lyer.

First of all, lets use your first example of god having a son as it is more relevant. Secondly, lets assume the 'man' is equivalent a theist as you in regards to commitment to his religion.

God told him he had a son, therefore god would be lying.

If he was created by someone else, then the one who created him deserves to be worshipped.

That line of thinking could go on endlessly, who created the creator of god and so on... As you can see, it is impossible to know who to worship, therefore you are worshipping a false god.

If he is mortal, then one day he will die, then why should I worship him if death can beat him.

Exactly.

If a man said that he is God's messenger. Would one beleive him unless one asks him what is your evidence ? He must have a miracle to prove that he is the messenger of God.

The problem is in perception. Many can witness a phenomenon and call it a miracle when in fact it is little more than something they are not able to explain, either due to their own ignorance or their need to believe in such things. This type of activity continues today with UFO's and other such pseudo-scientific nonsense.

If you recognise the miracle then the man is not lying, and he is the messenger of God. Then you should listen to what he says, and comply with his instructuion, as then you will be obaying God's orders.

Smoke and mirrors are a messengers best friend. Con-men to this day continue to bilk the gullible as they did back then.

One must ask, what is the miracle that still excists ? a miracle that you can see and recognise ?
Search for it and you shall find it.

You may or may not have had time to read a number of posts here but many have been searching their whole lives and have found nothing.

And when asked, theists cannot tell you when/where/how to search. One can conclude they only found what their imaginations conjured.

 

[arnoldmiro]

The beginning is the best place to start.
As I understood, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you do not beleive in God.
In that case there are two other possibilities left to beleive in :
1) A devine cosmos ( Has no beginning and will have no end ).
2) The great explotion theory.
Let me know what do you beleive in so that we can walk together towards the truth.

And regarding your latest message :

If God is lying, then he would not be perfect; accordingly, he would not be worth worshipping

Then it appears that you and every other theist have a big problem on your hands..

There is only one right religion, it can not be two ore more. And the others are either perverted or man made religions

If he was created by someone else, then the one who created him deserves to be worshipped.

That line of thinking could go on endlessly, who created the creator of god and so on... As you can see, it is impossible to know who to worship, therefore you are worshipping a false god.

.
If a creator is created, then he is a creature like you and me.
There shall be only one who created us all. The one who began every thing.

One must ask, what is the miracle that still excists ? a miracle that you can see and recognise ?
Search for it and you shall find it.

And when asked, theists cannot tell you when/where/how to search. One can conclude they only found what their imaginations conjured.

The miracle is the Quran, which is the words of God.
If interested in knowing more about it, you can receive a free copy if you contacted this site http://www.beconvinced.com/en/main.php

Peace be upon you

 

[audible]

I need to light a fire how many copies can I get, do they do bibles as well.
are you an atheist, as you seem like one to me. or do you believe in christianity or sikhism of hinduism or buddism or shintoism, etc...

 

[arnoldmiro]

I need to light a fire how many copies can I get, do they do bibles as well.
are you an atheist, as you seem like one to me. or do you believe in christianity or sikhism of hinduism or buddism or shintoism, etc...

If this message is to me, then do not bother about my religion.
Tell me about yours. Beleiving in no God ? So what do you beleive in ?