Debate God

See, that part to me is kinda dumb. It's so convenient for the church that only people who believe without seeing are rewarded.

 

i meant its more rewarding becouse some people walk around saying "where is this god of urs? im not gona believe till i see"

 

God cannot exist in the same plane as potatoes.

 

Lol. Why can't God exist with potoatoes though?

 

Truth is, this debate can only be settled by faith. Whenever we come to prove something, we can always encounter it with either a "why?" or "how?". We can't really prove there is a God, or prove that he's not there.

We say there is a God because most of us were taught that. We say there isn't because there is no existing evidence of him. We say we were created by the Big Bang, but what caused the rocks to be there in the first place? We can answer "God put them there" but there is no proof there is a God.

 

You beat me to this Nitrous.

As for your comment on Statement 1, well put. You talk about scientific probability and 'known planets', but we frankly know squat about the vast majority of this galaxy, let alone others. Speculating on creation based on how 'lucky' our situation is for the purposes of evolution is flawed in itself. If it has a probability, then it could happen and, guess what, it did.

With regard to the Syberian Mammoth point, I would be very interested in seeing detailed account of the evidence and research involved in such a conclusion. It sounds like an interesting argument, but without some sources I might as well have heard it from a guy in the pub.

Back to your first point Nitrous, it has certainly been said enough, but I fear it's falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes, I guess). Evolutionary scientists are quite content to put forward evidence to support their theory (I hesitate about using such a loaded term as 'proof', but it can safely be taken as proof in terms of 'beyond reasonable doubt', proof in terms of that which we take to be true since it is the most likely explanation with which we are presented, based on the evidence we have access to, and granting a degree of credibility to our perspective and perception). Yet the bulk of creation arguments presented here have been 'evolution isn't true because...'. If you're going to support a theory, and put it forward in opposition to another theory, then back it up, let it stand and be assessed in its own right. Please think of it from an believer in evolution theory's perspective: You're trying to disprove the theory we support, yet no matter how many numbers you can pull supposedly disproving it outright, if you don't put forward more convincing evidence for your own theory, and even assume that your theory is the only other possible answer, then do you really expect us to abandon our current theory? Beyond this even, there is no account for the possibility that your theory is wrong, it can't be adapted, or even abandoned as any scientific theory can when it is 'proven' wrong.

In pursuit of demonstrating the point via a funny Irishman (and what better medium is there?), I would ask people to watch the live standup dvd called 'Dara O'Briain Talks Funny', and it goes a lot further in this argument than any number of sources or scientific studies. To paraphrase Dara himself:

"Sure the theory has some holes, but science doesn't know everything? Science knows that it doesn't know everything. If science knew everything, it'd stop...

There may be gaps in the picture presented by science, but that doesn't mean you can go filling in those gaps with whatever fairy tales take your fancy... Do you have any evidence? Reply: 'There's more to life than evidence'. Get in the sack...."

Evolution theory, and other scientific theories, can be considered works in progress. The share the common beauty of science that it can admit when it's wrong. Something can be taken as fact for hundreds of years, taken as the biggest core of science, then one day proven wrong. People will take it, say 'ok, let's start over on that one'. There will be scientists who throw up their arms and refuse to let go of their precious, old, defunct answer, but such people are stupid, and there's no helping stupid people. Science is quite content to say that it doesn't know everything, it's a constant premise in all scientific theory that it's true for all intents and purposes, and until proven wrong. And it's even the true joy of science, exploring what is unknown and actually finding things out. In comparison, religious approaches as an intellectual pursuit, such as creationism, seem to me to claim to know everything already. Whilst it may not be a religious premise that all followers know the true nature of everything (if it did then buy me a ticket), religion itself (when considered in basic terms of, frankly, God, or any equivalent deity) claims ultimate, indisputable knowledge. If we learn one thing from looking at the history of religion/science, and the natural philosophical disputes between the two, it's that our accepted truths (both religious and scientific, and including that awkward puberty period where they were kinda the same thing) have so often been proven (again, for all intents and purposes) wrong. Religious natural philosophy has no room for this, and as such: I love science.

Which links nicely, if in a rather lengthy manner, back to your last point, Nitrous. Sadly, yet rather amusingly, science seems to have little place in discussions such as these. But then neither does religion, they approach on fundamentally different premises, and as such this stuff often comes to naught, or that strange, odd-child mix of the two, that pubescent peculiarity I referred to earlier. Sigh.

That aside, certain shreds of this forums may be the last bastion of intellectual discussion around here (if not the sauce itself, then at least the vain pursuit of it), please don't bring potatoes here too. Potatoes have their place, and it's in the ground, then under a knife, then in a pan, then in me. See that it stays that way.

 

I did assume as much, it's basically such a given in science that it can be assumed when using such language. I was more saying it to make clear my point so that people didn't read into misconceptions or inconsistent perceptions of truth and proof in relative vs. absolute terms, as they seem to so frequently. "Look, Science was wrong! Silver bullet! Silver bullet!"

 

alright, first of all, i know i sure cant change your mind, especially over the internet. secondly, its all in faith, god cannot be proven, nor would he want to be proven. and if you could prove him, everyone wouldnt have "Faith" in him and his exsistence, they'd simply use theyre own common sense. if you could see him, it would all be obvious, youd do what he tells you. only by faith and walking his path will you earn youre way to heaven, while others who chose to stay at thier distance ultimately shun his invitation.

seeing/knowing god is real=believing and following him=not actually earning his gift
or
having faith, not actually seeing him=EARNING your way to heaven

ill come back and explain my point more with detail later if youd like, but im real sleepy. and not that youve been hostile, but id rather not arose any anger, as i can tell you have a passion for youre opinion.

 

While it's true that God can not be directly disproved, many things about him can.
For example, disproving Creationism, subsequently disproving one of the staples of hardcore Christianity, that would certainly make you skeptical about God.

I'll use another example. Supposedly, being Gay is bad and wrong(according to the Christian faith), let's quickly assume that we're all made in God's image. Then shouldn't Gays be nonexistent? Often, being Gay is not a choice, so God giving us freewill certainly does not come into play.


Correct me if anything there is wrong, I'm not very good at debating this subject on a high level.

 

I like the first bit of your post. You have your path, and you hold it dear, yet you don't expect everyone to cry huzzah and follow it as an indisputable truth when you put it forward.

But there's one bit that really bugs me, and touches on one of my big gripes with religion in general, but in specific, exemplar terms with Christianity. This thing about EARNING your way into heaven by believing in God despite not seeing him, and arguably having to struggle to have faith (in line with the 'earning' principle), it seems odd to me for a couple of reasons:

-It presents faith as a struggle, something that you do for the sake of the ends, against the easier options, not because you want to do it. This is something which I don't agree with and, if I were ever to approach life from a faith perspective, I would take it and hold it dearly in itself, not as a means by which you 'earn' your ticket to heaven. It should be a ground state of being, not a challenge and reward.

-The whole idea of earning your way in to Heaven grates with me in general. I know this is an old one, but I've never heard a response from any of the many fascinating religious philosophers. Does it not seem a little odd to create existence, base it around humanity, make them as they are, flaws and all, then set standards by which they must live or be punished for eternity after death? Following the religious premise, true God gave us free will, but he undeniably gave us flaws as well, defined and resounding. Creating us with natural urges and flaws which go against the rules set for us, seems far from compassionate to me, and in fact I can see no consistency between the expecations set out by religion and the 'nature of existence and stuff' explanation that it gives. This isn't the old 'if God loves us, why do bad things happen?' argument, I think we can all safely dispense with that whilst in possession of a brain. But why create an existence simply to punish those who do not exist as you see fit?

And @ Hotpok, I see your point with regards to the gay thing, but it's a tricky example. "The Christian Faith" doesn't really exist de facto, especially not in terms of laying down definite rights and wrongs. Various different Christian faiths hold differing views and readings of The Bible etc, and faith and moral attitudes toward homosexuality differ wildly across the spectrum, it's not as simple as "Christianity says being gay is wrong".

 

If God exists, then that means that we exist forever. I cannot think of a worse fate than that.

 

This thread is still open for debate? Really? I thought the point of this thread was...

It's clear there is no solid evidence of God's existence. So clearly this thread can't be debated.

(I've also already stated this. Funny how no one wishes to try and prove me wrong)

 

Debates are not necessarily about coming to a tidy conclusion. They can also be about learning and coming to a greater understanding about why everything is. Clearly there will always be atheists, theists, and agnostics. However, by debating the possibilities of a god and whatever that may have attached to it, we can all see what others have on their minds and hopefully expand our own horizons. It's a learning experience!

Oh, and one question for those who seem to be very absorbed in their religion. Why do you believe what you believe? Have you even tried to challenge your beliefs, or have you been too scared to do so because of "God's wrath"? Only by challenging your beliefs can you strengthen them. What you believe in is just as important as why you believe in it.

 

I just have one comment, A way to put it is like God is like insurance. You pay for it with your soul, instead of money. And your protecting yourself. So even if you think its BS why not have insurance.....

 

Excellent point, why would God bother to create them? He wouldn't, obviously...

Anyone hear what the Pope said recently? What a great guy [Major Sarcasm]

 

Well, here I am again, offering my heavily-unnecessary two cents-worth. The basis of your argument (concerning homosexuality) relies on the belief that the orientation is not a choice. I consider that a falsehood. I do believe that certain people can honestly be attracted to the same sex, but not by definition, a homosexual.

So, I'll start by giving the benefit of doubt here. I, not being a homosexual, cannot examine the preference itself. However, I can apply their defenses to what I do know. That is, I am a heterosexual. If they claim homosexuality to not be their decision, then heterosexuality shouldn't be a decision either. Now, we're dealing with something closer to home. Being straight is a decision I make. I acknowledge when there is an attractive female or an attractive male. I'm not one of those homophobes who denies being able to tell the attractive difference in Steve-O and Daniel Craig. That said, I choose to like women. I was not created this way.

Now, I commonly make jabs at folks and use the word "gay" derogatorily. Shoot me. I personally, while disregarding my Christian beliefs concerning the subject, still view it negatively for the most part. I hate to see a gay person use the "God made me this way" cop-out. That's lame. They're blaming their own choices on someone who hasn't recently showed up to defend Himself. Ya know what? I'm self-centered. I think I'm better than a lot of people, but that's not God's fault. That's my fault, and I accept it. Even rapists or robbers admit their wrong. It all but pisses me off to see such a lack of heart. Now, there are definitely homosexuals who acknowledge that they make the choice and etc. I treat those people exactly like I treat a friend who smokes pot or habitually steals candy bars. Sure, my Christianity calls for me to not take their wrong lightly. Never would I drive their sin into the ground, though; for my own surely surpasses it.


Hotpokkaminny, thank you for opening the topic. I respect the last bit of your quote, for the same applies to myself.

Can't believe I almost missed this post. You, sir, are WRONG. God is not your safety net. The Bible states openly that God would prefer you blatantly turn away from Him than dance along the fence and consider Him "insurance." Failsauce.​

 

Incorrect. Your genetic makeup makes you inherently attracted to the opposite sex. We do not asexually reproduce, therefore our genes must make us heterosexual for the survival of our race. You perceive yourself to be making a conscious decision to be straight, but in reality that decision has already been made for you.

Now, occasionally a child will develop differently in the womb. This can cause a human to be naturally attracted to the same sex. Now some people may deny themselves of this natural attraction to the opposite sex because many believe it to be "wrong".

Now that doesn't mean a straight person cannot have a gay experience, or a gay person can have a straight experience. Because it can happen. It's just not a natural instinct.

Despite what many think or believe, being gay is having a natural attraction to the same sex, not acting upon those influences.

 

Soooo, I'm wrong because you somehow understand the development of sexual preferences of a child whilst still in his/her mother? I gotta say, I uhh...I kinda...uhh...I'm not buyin' it.