the fact that God exist is proven by common sense. what exists was created. nothing can exist without being created. to be created requires a sujbect of the verb "to create" this creator is God.
everyday people create things. proof that what exists was created.
it is a fact that what exists was created. Time and space were created by Mind.
You're talking through your hat here.Originally Posted by iorix
Absolutely not.a theory is a proposition that can be tested scientificaly, in a laboratory or someplace.
... "I exist" is a proposition. "The sky is blue" is a proposition". "God exist" is a proposition". Anything can be a proposition, it only depends on the context. And Big Bang is not considered a fact, but a theory, just like I named it in my posts above, therefore I don't know what you are arguing against here.the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced.
And Big bang is a theory. Your point is?i can propose that water boils at 100C then i can test this theory and prove it repeatedly and then it becomes a fact.
No it's not "pure speculation" read again my post you quoted, I'm not going to explain you the Big Bang, I'll let you do the research (one searching clue: residual light, for example)that the universe originated from a big explosion is pure speculation which cannot be tested or reproduced.
Oh! You've tested it in laboratory? Ok, I stop here, I see I'm really wasting my time...that God created the universe is a fact.
EDIT: I just read you last post too, what do you mean by "everyday people create things"
No, the fact that things exist in no way proves God exists. The fact is that things do exist. That is the only definable fact.
Everything else is supposition as to how it was created, some believe it was created by god; others that it was the Big Bang; others that we are a experiment by aliens. None of these are facts, but some of them have far better basis in science for their acceptance.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
people shouldnt teach big bangism as though it is a scientific fact, neither is evolution a scientific fact.
the claim that the earth is old is also just a claim, but evidence proves otherwise.
God created the world for a specific purpose. God has sent prophets into the world and a lot of people are rebellious against God's authority
You Know....some say there is a science for this...some call philosophy, some call
"I am glad to learn my friend that you had not yet submitted yourself to any of the mouldy laws of Literature."
-John Muir
"My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night; But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends - It gives a lovely light"
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God.
They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?" Dr. Wernher von Braun.
Iorix, do you consider this an argument?
I know I said it previously, but it is worth repeating. Believers attempting to use science to argue the existence of god is a dangerous slope for building a foundation.
As an example, you bring up about the earth not being as old as scientists claim:
Common scientific acceptance ages the world at something like 4.6 billion years. I am going to use the christian derivative age from the bible for comparison ( I am assuming you are christian) which ages the world at approximately 6,000 years. That is an error of some 99.999869565%!!!!!Now if this dating had taken place only once by someone who had never done it before I might accept that the scientist carrying out the experiment was a complete idiot that didnt know anything - but the fact that it has been redone time and again, peer reviewed by experts and still gives the same approx age means that it must be a lot more accurate than that. Exponents of creationism claim the odds of abiogenesis happening spontaneously make it too mindboggling to consider - well the odds of each experiment being off by this much are far more unbelievable.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
Okay, I don't know if Iorix is saying that as well that God exists, also the Earth is only some 6,000 years old, or what. Most Christians, at least, today, in America, I believe, believe both in God and evolution, so let's at least not look at this from either side with a gaping mouth. In fact, let's not gape our mouths at anyone.
But I've been scanning this a little and briefly, and I'll go ahead and jump in here.
-Yes, with arguments for the existence of God, although I was an atheist the majority of my life. Reading the God Delusion taught me a lot. Most of what Dawkins was saying about the different proofs of God seemed to be true, but I saw weaknesses in what he was saying as well. I'd already studied philosophy a lot up to that point, and rather valued my own insights. Dawkins didn't make me an atheist, but rather made me a pantheist by the end of reading what he wrote. And, I decided I wasn't pantheist, then, but rather atheist. Although-- I thought like this: I am not a pantheist, because I don't believe pantheism is true. For all best considerations, I am an atheist, because what I believe in is not anything else. I do not believe in the God that ANYONE else has thought of, or believe in, if for no other reason than that I would not accept their opinions completely for my own. My own discrimination made me realize I did not believe in their God, at all.
Anyway, let me apologize for this, and attempt to start freshly.
Many people do believe in God. The numbers are so many-- and of course there are every type of believer. And distrust is in order, naturally, and it is correctly placed. There is nothing special, different, or better about believing in God. Judging people in this way only shows that you are willing to make a decision about things when you have no possible chance of being right. Understanding people takes years, and we never know them completely.
As Aquinas says, "my arrogance would be equalled only by my delusion," or something like that.
So having said all that, I'll give what my opinion is. Remember, it is from someone who didn't believe, for pretty much all of the same reasons anyone doesn't believe, for most of my life. As time goes on and you learn about it, though, you always see the problems from new perspectives, all the time, and so the objects we're viewing always changes too. In fact, if God exists and if it's true, and someone accurately knows Him, who lives on this Earth, then the God they know is not the same as the one we know-- if it is true then there's something about it we do not know correctly. Etc., etc., etc.
I used to think it was unreasonable to believe in God, but what I know as God and what I know as reason now, are not the same things as I knew before. Now, I haven't written down in step-by-step proof what is reason, and actually reading a discourse on what reason is seems to be rather boring, but I think what I know as reason is more true now, than then. And, what comes before that is the difference in what I see God as, since the way I see Him I see reason as something that comes from Him.
My original goal in this post was to describe, if I may, and briefly, in words, my view of God, why I think it is reasonable to believe in Him. To do this, we must set aside for good such grossly erroneous ideas like that the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. This is about the existence of God, not any kind of conflict like that. Anyway, I do apologize for so much ado.
To believe in God the way I do now, I could not also believe in my previous understanding of Him. So, what is God? This is a question that is important, and it's almost too important to answer. No one should take it lightly, or then they will take seriously weak intellects which over-state the importance of their opinions. I have seen God in several forms. One is as a pervading, unifying principle of Goodness in my life, that manifests itself through the intellect, of myself and my peers, through the hearts and minds and joy and souls of those around me and myself. This I believe that other people understand Him as too. This is when people say that they give thanks to God. It's because they see Him as an active principle in their life. The second way I've "seen" Him, or known Him through reason, is as described by Pascal. God is a single point, which goes through all points in space at an infinite velocity, and so is everywhere at once. Such a God is described like this, as a single point going at infinite velocity, but He is not known as a point-- He is known as God in every way that we know Him-- as Love, as the active unifying princple of Goodness, etc. This infinite God, exists as an infinite to our finiteness. We cannot know Him, since by the definitions, we are the known, and he is the unknowable. The infinte God is the hidden, concealed God. He exists in an infinite capacity, rendering all else insubstantial, He exists on another dimension, etc., etc., and He is the source of all things that are impossible, that require this infinite to break through barriers. I also know God as the Source, as described in Plato, of Being, and of the source of the intellect, and as the source of all things transcendental. When we meditate on This God, we are generally looking to Comprehend the Source, and be at peace, perhaps, or to share the love we found in this contemplation. All these forms of God I believe to be true, they are all one or another perspective of God, they are the best we know Him, as described in words. I am not saying these things to be a snark, I am telling what I've found to be the ways we know Him best, after years of searching and deciphering, and I think they are valuable hopefully as I've presented them to you, but for various reasons also because they're my opinion. Though I believe in God now, I tell you the truth in that I never felt as an atheist I was missing something in my life!That is, when I was an atheist I did not have some kind of soul-sickness due to my lack of belief. Nor did or do I ever subscribe to the intellect-defeating thing that says God MUST exist because of this or this or this; I don't think God MUST exist I simply believe in Him as I do and understand Him to the best of my abilities. If I hadn't come to a belief in God by reason, I never would believe in Him, nor would I be upset as to the understood outcome of my searches. That would represent dishonesty.
Did you have a real response, or just ad hominems?
I did not claim that Christianity was the only religion with "an omnipotent, omniscient deity at the head of it." I said that only Christianity provides a coherent theology that does not require an acceptance of contradictions or "gaps" that many other religions do in terms of morality, the origin of the universe, the problem of sin, the redemption of humanity, etc.
You'll forgive me if I'm not a relativist when it comes to my faith; since faiths are mutually exclusive (since all claim THE TRUTH and that cannot be true since they contradict each other) I'm not required to see other faiths/theologies as equally as valid as mine. That is not to diminish their value, but simply to state a clear preference. If I were a Jew steadfastly defending my faith and questioning the validity of Islam and Christianity, would I be challenged in the same way? It seems like - in our politically correct world - that it's fine for any faith - except Christianity - to say that "my way is the correct way." Or on the flip side, how many Jews or Moslems admit that other religions are as valid as theirs?
Why is that, I wonder?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Well, Red Zeppelin, you know I respect you, your ideas, but I would like to give you my opinion that the Hindu idea of creation is flawless. There are not any gaps in it. Hinduism is actually a very, very high religion! But, don't worry about it, just wanted to share my opinion.
I do not recall enough from memory to comment on Hindu creationism, but the reincarnation part creates significant issues: which body/life is yours in the end? What was the original soul "paying for" when it was first born? What kind of religion consigns me - perhaps - to the life of a cockroach because of my bad decisions? That's justice? That is love? That is "God"?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Only Krishna remembers all of his past lives. This is said in the Gita as a warning against someone saying they are God. Someone would say they are God, but this is inaccurate, for one, because they are only human, and also, they don't have knowledge of all their past lives.
Souls weren't paying for anything to be born. God created the universe, called into existence all the material forms and worlds and planets and stars and oceans, and then he called into existence all the souls, to live in the material world. The spiritual world and heavens are above and beyond the material world. In this life the highest thing we can do is devotional service to God, to Krishna. This means we serve everything in creation, even the low, the poor, and the homeless. That is my understanding of the Visnu expansion creation of the universe. If a cockroach has a soul, then it plays some part in creation-- do you think it plays no part? Yes, a cockroach is a lowly creature in our understanding, but it plays a part.
That poster tends to post a lot of rather vague, steam-of-consciousness type posts. I don't think you'll have much luck with him/her.
Can you demonstrate these gaps in Islam and Judaism, just to start, that do not exist in Christianity? For a start. Of course, if I dig up any other monotheistic religions with an omniscient, omnipotent deity you'll have to go about showing the inconsistencies in those, too, due to your claim.
Fair enough.
Yes, yes you would be challenged in the same way. By myself, at least. I don't play favorites in that matter and I really don't think you're heading down the right track by trying to play the 'PC oppression' card here. I just used those religions as an example that came quickly off the top of my head.
I could take some cracks at why people would behave in such a manner (to challenge a Christian but not a Jew or Muslim making the same claims) and I think we would probably find some common ground in our beliefs on why this occurs, however, it would no doubt offend enough people to drag the thread pretty far off topic. If you care about my opinion on that particular issue, feel free to PM me.
In this case, you either admit that God must have had a creator or that not everything requires a creator. Your own logic backs you into a corner when examined more carefully.
They are close enough to scientific fact to be taught as such. Nothing is 100% proven fact in science, but both of those theories have enough supporting evidence to be considered as having a 99.9999999999999999999999% chance of being true. You also seem to misunderstand what a scientific theory is: It is not a random guess, it is an over-arching framework that explains a group of facts and how they tie together.
I would like to see the evidence that points to the Earth being young.
Last edited by Dark Star; 01-25-2008 at 07:12 PM.
"Gaps" may not be accurate - non-monotheistic religions have big ones, however.
My primary problem with Judiaism and Islam is a simple one: neither one acknowledges Jesus Christ as God, as the savior of the world. That said, both Judiaism and Islam are "works" oriented religions - both have behaviorism as the road to heaven. The problem with that is that human beings can't "earn" heaven because humans are inherently selfish, evil and depraved. Only Jesus Christ provides the solution to the inescapable trap that sin has put humanity in; His atoning sacrifice allows the gift of eternal life to be freely offered to all who accept it - ALL. All three religions acknowledge that sin is a problem, but neither Judiaism nor Islam offers a solution except "keep the law." Christianity says "the law is not the point - Jesus' sacrifice is the point." The believer is not bound to the law - but when he accepts God's offer of salvation by grace, the believer (because he desires a relationship with the being who has given him so great a gift) will start becoming (via God working inside him) the kind of person who will want to keep the law - not out of fear, but out of love. So, in a nutshell, neither religion effectively deals with the issue of sin and salvation.
Note: for those of you out there who may know Judiaism and Islam better than I, play nice if I have oversimplified: I don't mind being "informed" or corrected, but I less than half enjoy being patronized. Thanks.
Perhaps - but in my observations of culture, it seems that - because of collective desire to be [appear] "tolerant" - that people are much quicker to nod their heads at strong affirmations of personal faith from just about any religion except Christianity. Maybe that's just me - but I've see many instances in print and media.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote