If you are admitting that god is vague. Then how can you base your life according to his teachings? I am not a kindergardner, and am pretty sure you are a little more advanced then that as well. I thought that people made up religion to explain things we could not explain, but as has been said, nothing is being "explained"
It doesn't matter if you're teaching a kindergardener. "Nature did it" is not an explanation no matter who you are teaching. When discussing theology with adults, spiritual leaders or anyone when goddidit is used constantly it shows that nobody knows how it was done and if you don't know how it was done then how can you be so sure it was a miracle? If I say, 'Jimi is sick' and then 'but a miracle occurred and he became better' someone is going to ask how it happened. If I reply "goddidit" did I tell them anything they didn't already assume when I used the word miracle? It's a great phrase to explain everything by explaining nothing. I didn't follow this paragraph...
Resurrection is impossible. It's not possible for something that was dead (legitimately and for three days) to come back to life. There is no question to ponder and mankind has spent far too long trying to achieve it (alchemy).
I give up on arguing religion. The fact is, science is what we know, and religion is what we hope we know. Every logical argument you cast out can just be slammed back down with something like, "God isn't restrained to physical limits!" It's just a losing battle.
Not true. Anything is possible and already is. It's just the probability of it occurring in the right time frame for you to see. Glad to see you figured it out. Now you can join the debate.
I'm not saying God is vague, and I only used the kindergartener analogy for example's sake. That should've been clear. Religion is what you want it to be. If you think religion is a heaping pile of crap - that's great. I don't think any religious people would care anyways. I'll attempt to re explain what I said. You said "you can't use the inexplainable to explain something." I retaliated by saying "the origin of all matter/space/time/energy/whatever, is unknown/inexplainable. However, although the origination of such things is inexplainable, what we do know is that it came to what we have at this current time." Saying the inexplainable can't explain anything is just a problem with the english language, like the paradox of "everybody's unique."
I promise myself to never post in this thread again...EVER. You guys must stop debating this vague topic, God's existence has no definitive evidence in support for it in either side. [It still has suggestive evidence] Debate something smaller, that is a piece of this vague unprovable topic. i.e. How old is the earth, and have no mention of God within it, then slowly build to this "does God exist." Else this thread will drive everyone insane
Saying that god's existence either way is indeterminable is lazy. Hypothetical determinitive evidence for or against god's existence exists: the theory of everything could be discovered, or god could appear before us all and chastise us for sucking so hard. Would you consider bible contradictions determinitive evidence? Logic contradictions against god's existence? If you truly believed that the existence of god is indeterminable than it would be illogical for you not to be an agnostic. Gut feelings don't count.
You can tell God is a human creation just by reading the bible. Example: (Found in Genesis 1 - 3) At the time of it's creation, Man had right over Woman, and Man was seen as greater. Genesis shows that a man was created before a Woman, and that a Woman came out of Man, that Woman was cursed with childbirth, and that the Woman was corrupted before the Man (Eve before Adam)
Well... no, religion is supposed to be personal and shared. You can't go off and do something on your own because you think you're doing it right.. You need clarification and insights from teachers. So now I'll bring in Jesus. Jesus was a teacher. Jesus is the Christ of Faith. Okay, so Jesus taught many people, right? These people taught other people.. okay? These people taught other people.. and so on, got it? Jesus made his followers believe. Faith is a basis in every religion, but Christianity is different because of Jesus. He indirectly showed what his purpose was and what we are to do on this Earth. Other religions didn't do just that. Why did Jesus speak indirectly, you ask? Well, what would you do? If you wanted to tell your friends that there's something that created everything, what would you do? You can't just say there is a someone up above who made us, because they honestly wouldn't believe you. How did Jesus make people believe then? Well, it was pure intelligence, if you ask me. Jesus says you can't fully understand God what-so-ever. But to get someone to understand just a little bit is a definite chore. So, Jesus explained things indirectly so that people would be able to understand God in a better manner. It's like baking a cake. When you make a cake, you want to follow the rules just right so you can have the best tasting cake possible, right? However, you don't learn when you just read the guidelines. So when you start baking a cake with a teacher to help and guide you, you then begin to learn. Soon you get the hang of it, and soon you don't need a teacher anymore. You then learn how to make the cake without rules or things. Jesus was the teacher in this case, and the cake was theology. Understand?
Religion is "supposed" to be doesn't work in a debate. That shows what its not, or what you want it to be, which is indirectly supporting my argument. The rest I didn't bother responding to, especially since I had no idea why you typed the second paragraph.
So doing something in a group makes it better? Are teachers always right? Other religions do say how followers "should" act.
Posting this hear, because apparently it does not belong in it's own thread according to Shad0w Viper.
And here is my repeated answer: Here's a premise: -God is all loving -God made man in His image Therefore, when man was originally created, man must have also been loving, and in God's image. Instead of God creating more men, he allowed men to recreate in order to show love. The whole reason I believe God created us in the first place is to show His love to something.
I see where you are coming from, but I can't say I agree. However. I do not have an answer to the question to contradict you, because I do not believe in God in the first place. One question, since when did recreating = showing love?
You made the premise of God's existence. You should be able to argue it. By way of recreating himself, man has something to show love to.
I'm on your side, dude. It was to show others why Christianity is different from other religions. If you do it correctly in God's eyes, yes. No, but it was to prove a point that what Jesus did was right. The whole paragraph was to explain why Jesus explained things as he did, not for you guys to grab little parts and ask me questions about it. You need to look at everything. No, you didn't read it: Give me one religion where a prophet explains what they're doing, and also explains what people are to do on Earth in an indirect way.
What is correct in God's eyes? Other religions have different views of what God deems right. The point is, even though all religions have many followers, this doesn't mean any of them are right. Buddhism.