I see

Then where else does he get god as an answer to anything?


Maybe we've been talking past each other a little, because I couldn't agree more with this. Of course, we are driven by the same insatiable thirst for knowledge as our ancestors were. And of course, we will be shown wrong on many things just as they have. But what does this have to do with the question of whether there are any such things as gods?

As time goes on science replaces inefficient answers with progressively better ones. They might not be 100% correct, but they are certainly better than the answers of 1000 years ago. To see this is true, just give me one scientific answer (however inadequate) that has replaced by a better religious answer! Give me just one!. I can give countless examples the other way around where science has replaced inferior religious answers with better ones. Nothing proves my point better than this simple realization.

If you're really that bored, maybe working on your literary skills will give you something to do. :)

The vast majority of people in the world are NOT christians...

Okay, so I just found this thread and tried to read the whole thing but it got kind of redundent twords the end so I may have skipped a bit so I'm not sure if anyone has said this or not.

According to most of you I'm going to hell :-) and oddly enough I'm okay with that because your views are not the same as mine.

I think it's impossible to say if a person is going to heaven or hell or if they can do good in the sight of G-d if they are any religon, atheism included. Technically only in your heart do you know if G-d is real or not because you cannot prove his existence... it all depends on faith. You don't know until you die weather heaven or hell is even real or not and I'm not sure about you I haven't spoken to too many dead people lately.

Moreover, this question is kind of biased because if the person would have asked can a christian truly do good in the sight of G-d most of you would have said "hell yea!" because most of you are christian. Your beleifs teach you different things about different religons and there are so many religons out there and not all of them can be right about the ideas of other religons or even G-d for that matter... and please spare me and don't say that you know with all your hear and soul christianity is right because you might in your heart and soul but that is not physical evidence it is faith.

Now for my actual take on this question...
We are all G-d's children regardless of religon (yes I'm inculding Islam because Allah is the same G-d that Jews and Christians have and there are probably more religons that I'm forgetting that have branched off these primary three). If G-d actually loves us like we think he does he would not condem us ALL to eternal suffering unless we did something terrible (being a non-christian dosen't count as terrible in my book, sorry).

I'd like to think that G-d loves all of us equal regardless of religon, therefore we are all good in the sight of G-d.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not believe that I am “relying” on faith. In fact, I will go as far as to insist that my conclusion of the supernatural is well thought out and exist on rational conjecture and evidence as supplied. I welcome your thoughts and if you can demonstrate to me how I am wrong, I will humbly acquiesce with gratitude for the superior knowledge.

You say you have a problem with this. I find it odd that your pursuit seems intellectual but you yet you seem very similar to the religious that you admonish. It seems to me you are doing the same thing they are. Telling people what they have to believe, which is counter-intuitive to intelectualism.

What is the difference between what they do and what you do? Essentially you are saying that as long as people admit that it is only faith, that it has no basis in reality, fact or evidence, that you will accept their opinions. However as soon as they place it outside of the category of faith you have a “big” problem.

You are admitting that you have a problem with people who don’t conform to your standards of how things should be looked at. You are not different, you are using the same methods from a different perspective.

~S.

Then you missed all the good stuff!

We left all that hell stuff back with the religious.

I for one don't know much about heaven or hell, but I think lob allow you to believe these things if you kept it in the parameters of your "faith". :D

Yeah, I think you missed the past four pages or so the people you are referring to retired.

Man you are going to get on well with Lob on that faith issue!

I think Christians deserve your criticism. If there is a god and I believe there is, we are all his creattion. As for being children, well I do not like that characterization much. It places God in the category of Father, and if that is so, he is a pretty lousy one!

I would like to think that also. It is unfortunate that it takes a brain to think instead of warm, fuzzy emotions. If God is a father and loved us equally, he is a dead beat dad as a Good father would treat his children equally, love them equally, feed them equally, protect them equally. He/it doesn't.

It would be nice though!:(

Scotty

I just need to be presented with this 'evidence' you speak of. I'm sure that's where we're going to disagree. :D


I don't fault you for using it, but that's a very old and tired argument. I'm not the one making any claims. I'm simply stating there is no compelling reason to think that gods exist, just as there is no compelling reason to think a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. If YOU think you do, like I said... I'm all ears.


Again, I am not in any way, shape, or form, telling anyone what to believe. I'm merely pointing out that if you want the rest of us to believe that your imaginary friend really exists, then the onus is upon you to provide some evidence this is so. Otherwise, you can't expect non-believers to take you seriously. If I told you there was a ghost living in my closet, I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously unless I could offer up evidence for why I think so. (btw- I'm using 'you' in a general sense. I don't mean you personally).

That is correct.

Here's the key point we disagree on. They are not just MY standards. They are the same standards you yourself would hold anyone to on any other subject except religion or theism. Think about it... What other subject would you allow me to get away with simply 'asserting' something to be true without any evidence for it? What about that ghost living in my closet? Sound plausible to you?

Where there is humanity, good is always there. Be a christian or not, be a human!

I'm simply saying that one of the following propositions are true: 1). There is a god. 2). There is no god.

Do you dispute this?

There is too a Flying Spaghetti Monster... prove there is not!:D

~S.

Conversely, where there is evil there is always humanity, be a good human!

Yes, I do dispute it, at least until we have an operational definition of "god" to work from. Only if we can agree on a clear and unambiguous distinction between "god" and "not god" are we in a position to apply the rules of categorical logic to determine the truth or fallacy of each statement. Until then, both are meaningless.

I was thinking this as I wrote my response and am glad you brought it up. I very much agree with you. Suppose our universe was started by a 5th dimensional kid playing with his chemistry set. Would he be considered a god? What if we are living in an alien's computer simulation? Would the alien be a god?

So you're 100% correct that we need to define what we mean by 'god'. But whichever one of these specific gods we are talking about, I think we can agree that each one either exists or does not. A biblical god who can simultaneously listen to and answer billions of prayers, either exists as stated, or does not. If one wants to assert that such a god exists, then he is obliged to offer evidence before expecting anyone else to believe it also. Would you at least agree with that?

Well, now scotty, I have to take the lobster's side on this one. Non-existence can't be proven. The burden of proof is on the side arguing for existence.

But a conclusion that a god with the stated attributes does or doesn't exist, has no bearing at all on the question of whether some other god with a whole different set of attributes might exist or not.
As a purely logical matter, I do agree. But religious belief is not a purely logical matter. Evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Theists are perpetually pointing to this or that aspect of the world around us and insisting that it's slam-dunk evidence for the existence of god as they conceive him to be. You and I look at the same features of the same world and see no such evidence. All we see is a challenge to come up with a different explanation for the alleged "evidence", and of course, it's always possible to do so.

All these conundrums are the reason why I've pretty much lost interest in discussions about god's existence. To the extent that I'm interested in god at all, it seems to me that a more telling question is, "What attributes would a god have to possess in order to be believable to me?"

[QUOTE]Lob, you don’t want evidence, you have ignored vast quantities. There is so much evidence that it can’t be ignored, even by you. Prolifically published physicists think that God is a reasonable explanation to the universe (maybe not the God of the bible, but God none the less).


Remember, it is not my intention to convert, so I could truly care less what you believe. But if I may say so, you misrepresent yourself. You come off open minded when in actuality you are quite closed off. There are many things that there is no evidence for yet you accept them readily, where is the scientific evidence for fairness? Why would the possibility of a god be any different?


No, no, of course not, you are saying that we can’t get along, if people won’t conform to your haphazard, close-minded, faulty logic.

And I quote:
I take it back, that takes a shape and a form, I won't call it ignorance because I truly do not thing you are, but it comes close.


I feel no compulsion to get anyone to believe in my imaginary friend, in fact, I wish I didn’t believe in it either (it would make life much more simple, ignorance is blissful) I am merely sharing my opinions. The onus is on you to open or close your mind, if you choose to only believe a thing based on evidence... well your position is flawed. You can hang your hat on evidence if you want, but you would have to dismiss many of the things that determine the human existence.

You should really use examples that are prevalent. Before it was unicorns and gremlins, now it is ghosts. That you equate the concept of god with such things really demonstrates how willingly you are to turn your brain off. Throughout history up until modern day philosophers and theologians, scientists and physicists have pondered the concept of God, have written books about the concept of God and its likely or unlikelihood. But here you are equating the concept it to unicorns, dragons and ghosts.


No, not ghosts nor dragons…but how about things that science has no evidence or theory for that we contend with every day like… human rights, equality, human spirit, fairness, justice, love, memories, sadness, hapiness… I could go on and on, but what's the point if there is no evidence then it doesn’t exist, and if it doesn’t exist why are we talking about it?

You know…while it may not be enough for you, just the fact that we can contemplate it is evidence enough to consider it. Well at least it is enough to demonstrate our existence, remember Descartes? Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am.

Take care,
Scotty

I see the point you're trying to make, but it isn't entirely true. As we can begin to rule out volcano and thunder gods, then gods of the sea, sun, and mountains DO become less and less likely! Probabilities CAN be used to ascertain the likelihood of certain gods. If one doesn't understand this, then they simply don't understand math or Bayes Theorem and need to educate themselves further.

Agreed! And evidence evaluation is (or should be)! So discussion over? :)

Vast quantities? I'm STILL listening!.

Wait a sec... I thought you said you hang YOUR hat on evidence as well? Didn't you say you had evidence? How long are you going to make us wait for it?



You don't seem to understand that the evidence you have so far offered for the existence of god is EXACTLY the same amount we have for unicorns, gremlins, and ghosts. Basically ZERO. Nada. A big goose egg.

Do you know how Descartes arrived at that famous quote? He realized there was nothing he could actually prove. Except... That he was thinking. Therefore, he was. It was the only thing he could prove to himself. Good luck!

You talk a good game lob, but your denial of the obvious, and your lack of response to the "evidence" is disappointing. This was fun until you started ignoring the core of our debate. Maybe we will cross paths on another thread. Peace to you and yours!

Take care,

Scotty