the proof is all around you nature people everything that is not artificial is God's creation but the question is, is there such a thing as heaven i believe in heaven because i am catholic and i believe in eternal happiness but the thing is atheist's believe in no god the make up their own fake god but the catch is that they believe that the Earth is just one big rock that somehow formed over time and unknown things started to grow and oxygen hydrogen etc. somehow happened. but the proof is all around you. yes yes everything the trees the water the sun outerspace plants flowers and us... he God created us in his image. so there i think i made my point.
Proof You aren't using the word proof correctly. Trees, plants, water, and the sun simply existing isn't proof at all. They are the result of a process. The process is what we are debating. I'd like to see proof from you that the Earth is not a big rock that somehow formed over time as unknown things began to grow on it. There is a bounty of evidence showing that is exactly what the Earth is. Doesn't eternal happiness seem a bit like a torture technique. Could you really remain happy for all time. Just a huge silly grin on your face all day, everyday, for ever. You would look like someone who had taken to much Prozac, permanently. They just released a list of torture tactics that the United States used to try and gather information from the enemy during the War On Terror. One of the tactics was to put a man in a small room and blast the theme from Barney for up to 72 hours at a time. That's what heaven sounds like. It's the happiest song on Earth, so why wouldn't the guy want to experience that happiness as long as possible. Because we are human. We can't take that much happiness in a row. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzo0iHrivVQ&feature=related
0) Way to generalize rabid, way to generalize. I am proof that is not true, I have devoted my existence to perfecting myself according to the Bible and abolishing my sin, just as Paul did, but I'm no where near as good at it as he is. NO WHERE NEAR. But I have noticeably changed. 1)says you.....subjective chance judging... 2)evidence? 3)um, yeh, actually yeh, that's the way it was for Noah, with the exception of 8 people. 4)The point of all that matter is to show God's power, according to us, not that it is just there. Chance is never fact, I'lll point that out, even the chance is .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%.
But here's the catch; what is spirit? This is so super simple. Spirit is generally defined as something that is a immaterial and nonphysical essence of the universe. The definition doesn't tell you what it is but what it isn't. This is the definition I use for spirit. If you want to define it as something else go ahead but you probably can't define it as a positive ontology because NO ONE has been able to, though, we can readily do it for ourselves and things that exist. And if you do define spirit any other way except through a positive ontology it is a NEGATIVE attribute. To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific.
Spirit So the definition "spirit" doesn't work because it doesn't describe what god is, just what he is not. But just because a spirit is too vague to have a positive ontology, that doesn't mean we can't give him one to keep the debate going. Couldn't you really just place god anywhere into our universe to give him a physical definition. Like god is light. All light in our universe is the physical form and incarnation of god. God is what makes the universe visible. God's power and body are the collectively united body of every light wave in the universe. You could also define god as spacetime itself. God is the space between matter. God is the expanding fabric void that all things reside in. Or how about dark matter? God is the invisible matter in the universe. God is the scaffolding that holds the universe together and he is also what is pulling us outward. Can't you place him anywhere you want just to satisfy a positive ontology?
These are all limiting factors. Like I've said you can define god however you want its not my problem. I only argue against a specific definition. Defining god as anything you have would be a limiting agent of his omnipotence and omniscience. Quick lol at: "God is what makes the universe visible." You are trying to give a positive ontology using the word 'what' as the defining factor. What is what and for that matter what is visibility?
I hate to say it, but religion is a bit of a stretch. Most things of the Old Testament are phony-baloney, and there's no way to prove God's existance. I'm certainly not saying He's fake, but we really can never tell if someone just made up the idea of God (Jesus?).
well this is going to be a sensitive subject but i dont belive that there is a god but but thats my opinion
Well, was Nitrous' definition wrong? Good. Here is another example from this thread. Odd definition, since you can have anything change a lot or a little in the same amount of time.
I hate to say it, but evolution is a bit of a stretch. Most things of evolution are phony-baloney, and there's no way to prove evolution. I'm certainly not saying its fake, but we really can never tell if someone just made up the idea of evolution. See? Just the same effectiveness. "but no, that doesn't apply to the argument." Well then, all I have to tell you is provide a reason for your argument rather than just saying something. This is a debate for a reason, not a God doesn't exist discussion. well this is going to be a sensitive subject but i dont belive that evolution happened but thats my opinion. Works just the same. Except the argument either way is pointless, and considered spam. High five.
The definition I use. I said if you had a different definition for it I would be glad to hear it so why are you saying I define things just so I can win? I specifically asked you to give an ontology for your view of spirit because whether you believe me or not this is not an argument for atheism. It is an argument for their being no argument and if this argument is successful (which it is) I can't call myself an atheist. It is equally damaging to both sides. ...I'll do a blog on it. Quick question how the **** was that a weird definition? I partially derived it from CHRISTIAN websites. You have no idea I try to be middle of the road for this argument only to get this bullshit from you. I'm tired of it. You don't give me answers and you complain when I tell you you didn't give me an answer and say I'm cheating. Please, PLEASE pay attention. Thank you. No, not everything can be interpreted negatively... Stop misrepresenting me and then parading around as a champion. Nitrous is physical. It says what I am not what I am not. Nitrous is spirit. What is spirit? My applied definition leads me to believe it is a negative trait but if you can provide a positive ontology for spirit then I will standby it with you, no matter my worldview. Hahaha, well I'm sure he can then. Why don't you demonstrate it? Come on, you can do it.
A positive ontology would be something like this. "Nitrous is physical." or "Nitrous is human." A positive ontology is not secondary: "Nitrous is kind/loving." Now my traits may be kindness and loving but that says nothing about the structure of myself. From what I gave you, am I human or a dog? Dogs are loyal and loving and kind, who's to say (from that definition) I'm human. A positive ontology cannot be relational: "God is our father" God is not a human male and fathers are only human males. In the Catholic Catechism the Church identifies god as transcending gender. And yes I am but not in the way you think. I'll do a blog on it eventually. It will be extensive, I warn you.
Explain Please Well you have to explain yourself. You seem to be implying that without the fear of hell or reward of heaven human beings would not be able to control themselves. You are also implying that morals can not be instilled in children separate from a religious setting. Would it be any less wrong to kill another person if there was no god or religion. Don't we have an inherent interest in treating each other fairly and with respect even without a claimed understanding of events that take place after death.
Would you go outside right now and stab the first person you saw? I'm guessing you wouldn't. Now, did you need to seek God's approval before coming up with an answer? No. It's common sense if we ever want to continue our race.
The common argument against atheistic morality is that if there was no god then we'd just do whatever we want with no consequences. This implies that we're only going to do bad things but why are bad things desirable to a godless world rather than good things? Perhaps some would make the choice to do bad (as they do now) but most would do good because that is the most fulfilling aspect of people's lives (in most cases).
WHO SAYS GOD WAS LONELY? If he is omniscient, shouldn't he have been able to see he was going to make companions in the future? If he is omnipotent, shouldn't he be able to make himself happy without making friends? Why would he need to make us? EH? Also: What is up with all the ornamentation in churches? Does God need a golden tabernacle? Do we need the statues and stained-glass windows? Does this strengthen our faith? More importantly, shouldn't we be giving the money spent on this stuff to the poor? If material things are unimportant to God; if material things are not what God wants in our lives, then why do churches have all this stuff?