Note : this is NOT a `bait´ question.
Please read my argument thoughtfully and respond to my position if you want, based on the argument of my question, and not based on your feelings about my question.
.
Where did "God" come from?
The origins of "God" seems to be a repeating feature in many questions and answers on this board.
.
If you BELIEVE that "God" always existed, than SAY SO, i.e. : say `I believe that "God" always existed´ instead of `"God" always existed´. I have no problem with whatever you BELIEVE. Please feel free to believe whatever you like to believe!
.
But I do have a problem with an unsupported claim as `"God" exists´ or `"God" always existed´, unless you can provide supporting positive and objective evidence for that claim. So far nobody has ever provided that.
.
As far as science is concerned : NOTHING exists FOREVER or existed ALWAYS. There is a start and an end to everything. Again : if you disagree with that view please provide supporting positive and objective evidence for the claim.
.
I look forward to your reply/replies!

As far as science is concerned : NOTHING exists FOREVER or existed ALWAYS. There is a start and an end to everything. Again : if you disagree with that view please provide supporting positive and objective evidence for the claim.

Science states that energy is always conserved. It cannot be created or destroyed. This is such an elementry fact in science that I'm worried about why you believe differently.

I pose you a counter-question which is just a valid as your original. If you do not believe in God, just say so, but if you make it a statement of fact, then offer your proof, not your BELIEF. You will have more difficulty proving your belief than I will have proving mine.

I pose you a counter-question which is just a valid as your original. If you do not believe in God, just say so, but if you make it a statement of fact, then offer your proof, not your BELIEF. You will have more difficulty proving your belief than I will have proving mine.

You'll have to prove that all the other gods don't exist too.

You'll have to prove that all the other gods don't exist too.
Not sure I get your point. Is this for me to address, or Creden?

Not sure I get your point. Is this for me to address, or Creden?

Well, you are also an atheist - just that I believe in one less God than you.

I think that most people who have written god off because they feel he let them down in the past. There are many evidences to be found that god exists, for those who are willing to look. And yes I believe that god exists.

i think that most people who have written god off because they feel he let them down in the past.

No. Someone that I don't feel exists could never let me down. I don't believe in him because to me its inconcievable. Simple.

I believe that gods were first created, honestly, to instil fear and order to an otherwise orderless society i.e. egyptian gods and so forth. Later as we grew in philosophy, I believe, that it became almost needed to give meaning to life and death, and a need for knowing that when we die we still exist somewhere. In ALL religions god, or gods, create places or situations ( Like reincarnation) that appeal to the believers. And still today religion and "god" is used to instill order.

Well, you are also an atheist - just that I believe in one less God than you.
That comment makes about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine!

That comment makes about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine!

No it doesn't. It is a perfectly reasonable statement. Why don't you understand it?

Note : this is NOT a `bait´ question.
Please read my argument thoughtfully and respond to my position if you want, based on the argument of my question, and not based on your feelings about my question.
.
Where did "God" come from?
The origins of "God" seems to be a repeating feature in many questions and answers on this board.
.
If you BELIEVE that "God" always existed, than SAY SO, i.e. : say `I believe that "God" always existed´ instead of `"God" always existed´. I have no problem with whatever you BELIEVE. Please feel free to believe whatever you like to believe!
.
But I do have a problem with an unsupported claim as `"God" exists´ or `"God" always existed´, unless you can provide supporting positive and objective evidence for that claim. So far nobody has ever provided that.
.
As far as science is concerned : NOTHING exists FOREVER or existed ALWAYS. There is a start and an end to everything. Again : if you disagree with that view please provide supporting positive and objective evidence for the claim.
.
I look forward to your reply/replies!

I believe that God always existed. That is my belief. As far as where did God come from? Can not answer that. Do not know.

As far as science goes. What I have learned and been taught by science is that nothing gets destroyed but changed. I disagree with nothing exists forever. Energy, atoms , etc... All has cycles. Example water. Never ending cycle of changing. I believe that is what happens to all of us.

Hope you enjoy my reply.

Joe

Glad man created the "rules" of science, and often find them flawed over a period of years. Man KNEW he could not fly, then he was able to. Man KNEW he could not go to the moon and so on.

So what man thinks he knows of science means nothing, it is the fact that God does exist, if he wants to tell you where he came from, he can, if he does not care to tell us, who are we to challenge him in this.

And Since God is beyond science and mans rules of life and nature, as he tells us, all of mans wisdon is folly.

So no God does not have to fit your mold or anyone's mold, he only has to be, And you have to either accept him or not, if you don't, then you will live ( or die) with that judgement it brings on you.

Note : this is NOT a `bait´ question.
Please read my argument thoughtfully and respond to my position if you want, based on the argument of my question, and not based on your feelings about my question.
.
Where did "God" come from?
The origins of "God" seems to be a repeating feature in many questions and answers on this board.

"God" came from man as a way to explain what he does not understand. It also provides people with a confidant, a scapegoat, but most importantly, hope.


If you BELIEVE that "God" always existed, than SAY SO, i.e. : say `I believe that "God" always existed´ instead of `"God" always existed´. I have no problem with whatever you BELIEVE. Please feel free to believe whatever you like to believe!

Many people do insert the qualifier that what they say is their belief. Even those who say "It's a FACT!" will relent and admit one must have "faith". That's the same thing as saying "I believe....".


But I do have a problem with an unsupported claim as `"God" exists´ or `"God" always existed´, unless you can provide supporting positive and objective evidence for that claim. So far nobody has ever provided that.

Again, this is where theists claim "faith". Some will claim evidence of being pulled out of a horrible point in their life, being "shown the way" or whatever, but what it all comes down to is faith. You either have it or you don't. A majority of theists understand "god" cannot be proven in a lab, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone - that's why faith exists. The impression I've gotten from many theists is that they wouldn't want "god" to be proven in a lab, because that means "god" is bound by earthly measures; it's all about faith (if I'm wrong, theists, feel free to correct me, I'm making an assumption here).


As far as science is concerned : NOTHING exists FOREVER or existed ALWAYS. There is a start and an end to everything. Again : if you disagree with that view please provide supporting positive and objective evidence for the claim.
.
I look forward to your reply/replies!

That just shows you don't know much about science, but that's been addressed in previous posts...

"God" came from man as a way to explain what he does not understand. It also provides people with a confidant, a scapegoat, but most importantly, hope.



Many people do insert the qualifier that what they say is their belief. Even those who say "It's a FACT!" will relent and admit one must have "faith". That's the same thing as saying "I believe....".



Again, this is where theists claim "faith". Some will claim evidence of being pulled out of a horrible point in their life, being "shown the way" or whatever, but what it all comes down to is faith. You either have it or you don't. A majority of theists understand "god" cannot be proven in a lab, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone - that's why faith exists. The impression I've gotten from many theists is that they wouldn't want "god" to be proven in a lab, because that means "god" is bound by earthly measures; it's all about faith (if I'm wrong, theists, feel free to correct me, I'm making an assumption here).



That just shows you don't know much about science, but that's been addressed in previous posts.....I'm kin of curious as to what you believe as far as god. If you don't mind

im kin of curious as to what you belive as far as god. if you dont mind

Don't mind at all. :) I don't believe in god, but I think everyone should be free to make their own decisions about their belief and be treated equally regardless of their belief (or lack thereof).

In other words, I don't believe, but I don't care if other people do, as long as we are all afforded the same treatment and rights.

Don't mind at all. :) I don't believe in god, but I think everyone should be free to make their own decisions about their belief and be treated equally regardless of their belief (or lack thereof).

In other words, I don't believe, but I don't care if other people do, as long as we are all afforded the same treatment and rights.yeah everyone has a choice to believe in God or not. I believe in god because, it only makes sense that God created the universe, I just find to hard to believe in something like evolution. Why don't you believe in God.:)

yeah everyone has a choice to believe in God or not. i beleive in god because, it only makes sense that God created the universe, i just find to hard to beleieve in something like evolution. why dont you believe in God.:)

Because it doesn't make sense that god created the universe and I find it easy to believe in evolution. :)

I'm a person who likes tangible evidence and proof of things - at the very least, logic. But to me, "god" has never made sense. I'm of the opinion people are either born with the capacity for religious faith or they aren't. I wasn't. It's one of those things that to me has never been realistic or logical; I don't choose to not believe, I just don't.

[quote=jillianleab]Because it doesn't make sense that god created the universe and I find it easy to believe in evolution. :)

I'm a person who likes tangible evidence and proof of things - at the very least, logic. But to me, "god" has never made sense. I'm of the opinion people are either born with the capacity for religious faith or they aren't. I wasn't. It's one of those things that to me has never been realistic or logical; I don't choose to not believe, I just don't. So you think that believing in God isn't logical.. okay, tell me does this make sense... ok, here's a story. The day you convince me of this story, then i will believe in the theory of evolution: Billions and billions of years ago, there was this big rock. This rock had a strange metal substance surronding the rock. But one day, a piece of the metal rock broke off, and began to form a cylinder-like container. Then some red, brown, black, and even a little green gases came together and painted the can. Now mind you, this is all an accident! These gases "accidentally" formed the words "Coca-Cola" along with its emblem and all the ingredients.Also, a liquid substance came together and made a watery substance that filled the inside of the can, and then some more metal formed together to make a pop top.:) pretty convincing...;)

Well... evolution doesn't explain how life began, it explains how it got to where it is today once it already began, so your analogy is a bit flawed. But you don't have to accept the theory of evolution, you just have to respect that others do; and they have to respect that you don't.

The thing you must remember about science is that it is constantly changing, and it doesn't have an answer for everything (yet). Scientists are constantly trying to prove one another wrong, and sometimes they do. But sometimes, when trying to prove one another wrong, they prove the original theorist more right.

And for the record, I didn't say believing in god isn't logical, I said it doesn't make sense to me. I understand the logic behind believing, but in my opinion, the concept of god (especially a personal god) just doesn't make sense. My brain just says, "Nope. Try again!"

Well... evolution doesn't explain how life began, it explains how it got to where it is today once it already began, so your analogy is a bit flawed. But you don't have to accept the theory of evolution, you just have to respect that others do; and they have to respect that you don't.

The thing you must remember about science is that it is constantly changing, and it doesn't have an answer for everything (yet). Scientists are constantly trying to prove one another wrong, and sometimes they do. But sometimes, when trying to prove one another wrong, they prove the original theorist more right.

And for the record, I didn't say believing in god isn't logical, I said it doesn't make sense to me. I understand the logic behind believing, but in my opinion, the concept of god (especially a personal god) just doesn't make sense. My brain just says, "Nope. Try again!"

I think your wasting your time jillian!

Skell, if I only posted when I thought I wasn't wasting my time... well let's just say I'd spend a lot less time on this site! :D

But so far this is a polite and civil discussion... when and if it turns otherwise then I'll know I'm wasting my time (and still probably won't stop)!

Well... evolution doesn't explain how life began, it explains how it got to where it is today once it already began, so your analogy is a bit flawed. But you don't have to accept the theory of evolution, you just have to respect that others do; and they have to respect that you don't.

The thing you must remember about science is that it is constantly changing, and it doesn't have an answer for everything (yet). Scientists are constantly trying to prove one another wrong, and sometimes they do. But sometimes, when trying to prove one another wrong, they prove the original theorist more right.

And for the record, I didn't say believing in god isn't logical, I said it doesn't make sense to me. I understand the logic behind believing, but in my opinion, the concept of god (especially a personal god) just doesn't make sense. My brain just says, "Nope. Try again!"so how can you believe in something that is constantly changing, that really doesn't ,ake sense to be, but perhaps you can enlighten.:)me

Religion changes too. Take when the Catholic church decided to change the rules about babies and purgatory so they could attract more converts in Africa (which has a high infant mortality rate) - that's an arbitrary change. The recent addition of "new" seven deadly sins; those things were not ordered by god, they were decided by men with no evidence, yet people follow them anyway. Over time the values and what is acceptable or unacceptable in religion change, but it's not because god is sending you all new messages, it's because man interprets things differently.

Science, on the other hand changes when people have new proof or evidence. I like that it changes because it means there is a constant search for the right answer, not the preferred answer.

Where did "God" come from?

I have no clue, but am trying to figure it out. Can I have more time? I think as man discovers more, he will eventually know. When will that be? How would I know?

Religion changes too. Take when the Catholic church decided to change the rules about babies and purgatory so they could attract more converts in Africa (which has a high infant mortality rate) - that's an arbitrary change. The recent addition of "new" seven deadly sins; those things were not ordered by god, they were decided by men with no evidence, yet people follow them anyway. Over time the values and what is acceptable or unacceptable in religion change, but it's not because god is sending you all new messages, it's because man interprets things differently.

Science, on the other hand changes when people have new proof or evidence. I like that it changes because it means there is a constant search for the right answer, not the preferred answer.if it is the right answer you are looking for then why do always lie to the students, because they were teaching me evolution example that was disproven more than a hundred years ago, the fetus thing... as for the catholic church, or any church, my final authority is the word of God, and of course God himself, the only thing that has changed from the bible is language, and different translations, but the main message of the bible is still there. And that is that god loves us and wants a relationship with us, not religon, that is the pharisees and saducees were always angry at jesus, because although they were religious and claimed to be something, there heart wasn't right, and only God can judge.

Evolution is not a lie, nor has it been disproven. It is science, important science, which is why it is taught in a science class.

And it's nice that your final authority is the word of god, but that doesn't change the fact that millions of followers have changes their views and interpretations of the bible to suit their particular agenda or mission. The basic message of the bible is still there, sure, but if you want to go that broad, I'll say the basic message of science is still there too; it's just the elements that change.

Religion changes too.

Some do. But not the doctrines of the Catholic Church.


Take when the Catholic church decided to change the rules about babies and purgatory so they could attract more converts in Africa (which has a high infant mortality rate) - that's an arbitrary change.

It certainly would be an arbitrary change if that were true, but it isn't.

The Church still teaches purgatory:
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1031 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1031.htm)

And the Church has every right to change rules about anything it wants. It is only the doctrine of Jesus Christ which is absolute.


The recent addition of "new" seven deadly sins;

The seven deadly sins have always been taught by the Church.


those things were not ordered by god, they were decided by men with no evidence, yet people follow them anyway.

The Church teaches only the Revelation of God. It is you who is making things up without evidence.


Over time the values and what is acceptable or unacceptable in religion change, but it's not because god is sending you all new messages, it's because man interprets things differently.

The Catholic Church continues to teach the doctrine of Jesus Christ.


Science, on the other hand changes when people have new proof or evidence. I like that it changes because it means there is a constant search for the right answer, not the preferred answer.

There is nothing wrong with searching for truth. It is wrong however, to attribute absolute truth to theories based on assumptions which can't be tested nor duplicated in a laboratory.

Sincerely,

De Maria

It is wrong however, to attribute absolute truth to theories based on assumptions which can't be tested nor duplicated in a laboratory.
You really don't see the irony in this statement, do you? It displays your complete misunderstanding of what the scientific method and scientific theory is all about. HINT: It isn't "absolute truth". That's a religious concept.

DeMaria, you're on my ignore list, but your post is so full of errors I just can't help myself.

First, about babies an purgatory: Pope Benedict XVI Changes Catholic Church's Stance on Unbaptized Babies and Limbo - Associated Content (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221601/pope_benedict_xvi_changes_catholic.html) Sounds like an arbitrary change to me...

And here's information about the "new" deadly sins: Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty? -Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3517050.ece) Another arbitrary change.

Perhaps you should understand what it is I'm referring to before you go around saying I'm wrong. It makes you look foolish.

And as for your last statement... it is the theists who claim "absolute truth" and who cannot test or duplicate "god" in a laboratory. Oh, and what OG said.

Aaannnnnddd... back on my ignore list you go!

DeMaria, you're on my ignore list, but your post is so full of errors I just can't help myself.

First, about babies an purgatory: Pope Benedict XVI Changes Catholic Church's Stance on Unbaptized Babies and Limbo - Associated Content (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221601/pope_benedict_xvi_changes_catholic.html) Sounds like an arbitrary change to me...

Its unfortunate that you believe everything you read in the news. The fact is that this article is wrong. It is not true that, "Traditionally the Catholic Church has taught that the unbaptized baby's soul goes into a state of limbo."

In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.
CNS STORY: Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm)


And here's information about the "new" deadly sins: Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty? -Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3517050.ece) Another arbitrary change.

The seven social sins are a matter of discussion. They are not official doctrine.


Perhaps you should understand what it is I'm referring to before you go around saying I'm wrong. It makes you look foolish.

If I didn't know the difference between Purgatory and Limbo, I would look foolish. If I didn't know that Limbo was a hypothesis, I would look foolish. If I had taken the content of a news article and acted as though it were Church doctrine, I would look foolish. But I didn't do that, you did.


And as for your last statement... it is the theists who claim "absolute truth" and who cannot test or duplicate "god" in a laboratory. Oh, and what OG said.

But they act as though their theories, such as the Big Bang and Evolution are absolute truth. Which they aren't.


Aaannnnnddd... back on my ignore list you go!

Thanks. I reserve the right to respond to anything you write in the Christian or the Religious Discussion forum however.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You really don't see the irony in this statement, do you? It displays your complete misunderstanding of what the scientific method and scientific theory is all about. HINT: It isn't "absolute truth". That's a religious concept.

Tell that to all those who keep preaching that we can't contradict the Big Bang THEORY or the
THEORY of Evolution.

Tell that to all those who keep preaching that we can't contradict the Big Bang THEORY or the
THEORY of Evolution.

I've told you many times that the reasons you can't contradict those theories is because those theories have evidence behind them if you can make a theory that fits the evidence better we will start to teach that theory instead.