At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
And throughout all of this, I am not, nor have I ever, said there most definitely isn't god. I'm simply saying there is no compelling reason for me to think there is. And if someone does, then they are obliged to provide evidence there is. That's a big difference.
I can't answer for a Christian, because I'm not one. I feel no need to prove anything about the God that I understand, and believe to be real (to me). My only concern is to be wise in the way I conduct my own existence. I fall short sometimes, but try to stay on the path that I have personally chosen. Its not about math, logic, or knowledge of all things. Its about a personal relationship that shapes my humanity. The fact that I have woke up this morning is all the proof I need to carry on, No proof, no evidence (that I can explain) no logic, just belief. I require no more than that. Good journey, if you do.
How does this make sense when your argument is that despite being a good person "God can't give the non-believer heaven clearly because he does not believe in heaven".
Despite everyones opinion or belief, some questions will never be answered by humans. If you don't believe in God fine, if you do, then let HIM do the judging.
I can't answer for a Christian, because I'm not one. I feel no need to prove anything about the God that I understand, and believe to be real (to me). My only concern is to be wise in the way I conduct my own existence. I fall short sometimes, but try to stay on the path that I have personally chosen. Its not about math, logic, or knowledge of all things. Its about a personal relationship that shapes my humanity. The fact that I have woke up this morning is all the proof I need to carry on, No proof, no evidence (that I can explain) no logic, just belief. I require no more than that. Good journey, if you do.
If everyone thought the way you did, it would be a much better world. You are admitting there is no evidence or logic you can present that should compel anyone else to believe in the god you know deep down exists. Rather, it is a personal experience or feeling that YOU feel guides your faith in a supreme being. Nothing wrong with that. I think you're wrong , but could easily get along with you.
But those without God don't even have hope, not for the life after this.
And of course as many say here morals and ethics are not just a Chrsitian issue but a issue of society, And there is no need to argue and most certainly no need to justify our beliefs. Those wanting a justification merely wish to not accept, which is thiere right, but when they wish to challenge those that beleive they wish to merely try and take away that hope and beleif form others.
I have always challenged that those that do this, are more than pure athiest, but are really those working for the other side, If one attacks one beleif, they have to have a belief that is against it, not merely a beleif of nothing.
Sorry, but are you saying that those women who were killed during the witch burnings, for questioning the logic that was used through the bible to kill them dude to their moles or sour milk, was evil? Are you saying those women should have shut their traps, because otherwise it means they were working for the other side? Goodness..
What about those blacks that were enslaved, and the logic of some people who called themselves Christians, being used to to justify this lunacy?
I could make a verrrrrry long list as to why it is verrrrrry healthy to question the ideologies that some label as Christianity (or any other religion, or atheism). I believe that if you are truly a Christian, Fr_Chuck, and not an evil-doer in disguise, then you shouldn't fear people trying to have a rational debate about religious ideologies by automatically claiming they are working for the other side. What are you afraid of? I mean, people who truly believe in the power of what they're saying, don't mind a healthy argument or discussion. That is, they don't need to use propaganda or to silence others...
Do you remember who the anti-Christ is supposed to be, Fr_Chuck? Something like Christ on earth.
So, I'm sorry, but according to Christianity, it's not those that would love discourse and enjoy getting human beings closer to the truth (God) that is working for the other side, but it can be people who pretend they are Christian (good) when they are truly NOT, that is working for the other side. Come on, you know this.
Me thinks that people who are not afraid to speak about God, and hence choose to have debates to try and get closer to truth (him), are not the ones you should fear are working for the other side. Those who prefer to silence others, and cast them as evil-doers if they try to question ideologies, seem to actually have something to hide themselves. I mean, I guess there is a lot to hide about the argument as to why we should have burned women to death, slaved blacks, and house-arrested Galileo. True Christians, in my opinion Fr_Chuck, and true good-doers, are the ones who questioned all these things.
Oh, and I do believe in God, for the record. But the God that I believe in, I think wants me to question all those things?
Really, I didn't mean any offense. It's just that I see such glaring errors in math and science here.
Surely you can see why I'm having a bit of a struggle. It's hard to avoid the implication that you think I'm one of those who makes these "glaring errors" that you see here. It's hard to see how my level of education and training could be related in any way to errors made by others.
Will you be offended if I ask you (again) about your education and training?
Quote:
One common example is that since the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproved, it must mean there is a 50/50 chance he exists! That's just ludicrous!
Yes, of course it is, but what has it got to do with anything I've said?
Quote:
I'm willing to read (more) on prayer (let me know if you have any specific links).
Yes, I think there are things that are immeasurable by science. Relative happiness, love, beauty, meaning, etc. But we aren't talking about any of those things. We are discussing the specific question of whether or not something exists.
Well, see, this is the heart of the matter. The theory of God that you bring to the subject allows a methodological distinction to be made between all those ineffables and the existence (or not) of God. But in the theory of God that the devout believer brings to the subject, the nature and existence of God are intimately and irrevocably connected to all these things.
Quote:
That CAN be a scientific question. A universe with (say, a Christian god for example), may be very different than a universe without one.
And the heart of the "experimental design" problem is to define specifically and precisely how a universe with that particular god (attributes specified in detail) would differ in an observable, measurable and repeatable way from a universe without such a god. Unless you and the religionists can agree about those matters of detail, you won't be able to design an experiment that will be recognized by both as providing legitimate and convincing results.
Quote:
And throughout all of this, I am not, nor have I ever, said there most definitely isn't god. I'm simply saying there is no compelling reason for me to think there is.
I'm with you up to this point.
Quote:
And if someone does, then they are obliged to provide evidence there is.
As long as they aren't trying to change your mind, they aren't obliged to provide you anything.
Quote:
I think you and I agree on much more than our correspondence in this thread would let on. We agree that it matters on what 'type' of god we're talking about before we assign a probability. That's huge. I think we also agree on other things.
I've known it all along.
Quote:
But I'm a little less willing to bend the scientific method or how it is used.
You surely misunderstand what I'm saying here if you think I'm willing to bend the scientific method at all. My concern is that it while it is a very powerful and useful tool, there are some fairly strict limits on its applicability, and it's a fool's errand to try to bend and stretch it to address questions that are far outside its scope, such as the effects of intercessory prayer, or the existence of god, or the meaning of life.
Quote:
Should science be the most important thing in our lives? No. But it's how we understand our world.
If it's the only tool in your box, you will learn a lot about the outer world, but very little about the inner one.
Quote:
And at the end of the day, scientific theories must make accurate predictions.
Scientific theories are mostly about providing coherent explanations, hardly at all about making predictions, except in the limited sense of what results to expect from certain controlled experiments or from specific observations or precise measurements of phenomena. But the purpose of such experiments and observations is to arrive at a more satisfying and comprehensive explanation.
Quote:
It's for this reason, I think gods and religions are useless when it comes to understanding how the universe works.
I wholeheartedly agree that the scientific method is the preferred tool for that job. For the job of finding meaning and purpose and joy in our individual lives, some form of spiritual endeavor may be a better choice.
If you beleive in him/her, he/she will love you. you dont have to be Christian to beleive in God, you have to beleive Jesus Christ is the son of God. If you know he is there then know he is watching you. he will always be with you.
But Athiests do not believe in God, or Jesus or any God for that matter, and there are hundreds of different gods. There is evidence the Jesus never existed at all, sounds shocking to someone who has been told stories all of their lives that he was real
, but could easily get along with you.
Linear Mode
