How Many T-Men Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
kroby wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therefore, if a thing (whatever it might be) cannot be explained you do not believe in its existence?

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

Yes, I understand your position. But, my question remains: how can you be certain?

The Bible It is incomplete, and therefore flawed.

But, how do you know? You are guessing it’s incomplete? What do you base this “reality” on?

A thing can exist without explanation.

Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.

Thank you again, ZEB, for this opportunity.

You’re welcome. Thank you.

  1. Can one be 100% certain that god, zeus, thor, odin, appollon… doesen’t exist? No… Can i be 100% certain that a silver teapot isn’t circling around a sun 2234 lightyears away, controlling the universe? No… Are any of the above plausible in any way? No… am i 99.9% certain that neither of them exist? YES!

  2. The bible is incoherent, self-contradictory and filled with weird translations and ofcourse: FILLED with gruesome hate and a god that seems like a jealous, vindictive and petty god… does that make him more realistic? no.

3)“Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.”

you miss “possible” with “plausible”

is it possible? well… yeah, theoretically… is it plausible? No, there is no indication, WHAT SO EVER…

Can you prove 100% you exist? I believe you exist, but can you prove it…

This is just retarded. Ofcourse, in the framework of rationality, I can prove that I exist. What is it with the total disregard for scientific method so many here show?

Use what ever method you like. It doesn’t matter what you will find is that it’s much harder than you think it is when you start breaking things down. It is not retarded. What’s retarded is trusting your five senses to tell you everything there is to be known. There are things that exist that cannot be detected with sight, touch, taste, hearing, or smell.

Whether or not your believe in God, raising the question at all automatically dumps you in the realm of metaphysics. Many of the great philosophers through out time have not been able to prove in a logical, deductive manner that they exist much less anything else.

Descarte was the closest in my opinion, but not perfect. He skipped a step with the whole “I think, therefore I am” thing. You brought up the question with your analogies. I am simply turning it introspective. [/quote]

Do i feel, see or… sense all waves? No, can i measure them? Yes.

These mytic, medival ways of thinking is… disturbing.

122

[quote]wangster wrote:
i believe in God.
i just do not want to turn my life around and follow Him.
…yet[/quote]

Isn’t this an odd position to have?

If you actually believe that God created you and has written instructions for you (the Bible, or other holy book), wouldn’t learning the book and living it to the best of your ability be of paramount importance?

If you believe that you (or your soul) will live eternally, then this life is nothing in your existence. If what you do here determines your eternal fate, choosing to willfully ignore God’s will doesn’t appear to be a wise choice. It would be like being offered hundreds of billions of dollars for a penny and saying, “nah, I’ll pass…” Even worse in fact.

How real is a belief that implicates nothing on your part other than claiming it?

123

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That is where Reason leaves off, and a different inquiry begins.[/quote]

And what informs that inquiry, if not reason?

124

[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

This is just retarded. Ofcourse, in the framework of rationality, I can prove that I exist. What is it with the total disregard for scientific method so many here show?

So you can prove you exist in reality as opposed to a dream or an illusionary state?

There is no real way of proving whether you exist in “reality” as opposed to existing in a dream state…[/quote]

Again, that is a exercise in futility. Ofcourse we can be the mind-games of a demon, or the pieces of a large, long-time simulation in a highly developed computer simulation. But that train of thought is just useless and futile. And more: it is not a respons to “can you rationally defend the existance of god”, it is more the exact opposite.

125

[quote]deputydawg wrote:
As I understand it, the Big Bang model is the the currently accepted scientific model. [/quote]

But which one? Currently there are at least 3 other models of the Big Bang:

  1. Hartle-Hawking Boundary condition
  2. brane cosmology (rooted in string theory)
  3. chaotic inflation

The “Big Bang” theory is used to appease those people who need a “universal genesis” but whom cannot rely on creationism to explain their existence. There may never have been a literal “beginning”.

126

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
kroby wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therefore, if a thing (whatever it might be) cannot be explained you do not believe in its existence?

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

Yes, I understand your position. But, my question remains: how can you be certain?

The Bible It is incomplete, and therefore flawed.

But, how do you know? You are guessing it’s incomplete? What do you base this “reality” on?

A thing can exist without explanation.

Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.

Thank you again, ZEB, for this opportunity.

You’re welcome. Thank you.

  1. Can one be 100% certain that god, zeus, thor, odin, appollon… doesen’t exist? No… Can i be 100% certain that a silver teapot isn’t circling around a sun 2234 lightyears away, controlling the universe? No… Are any of the above plausible in any way? No… am i 99.9% certain that neither of them exist? YES!

  2. The bible is incoherent, self-contradictory and filled with weird translations and ofcourse: FILLED with gruesome hate and a god that seems like a jealous, vindictive and petty god… does that make him more realistic? no.

3)“Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.”

you miss “possible” with “plausible”

is it possible? well… yeah, theoretically… is it plausible? No, there is no indication, WHAT SO EVER…

Can you prove 100% you exist? I believe you exist, but can you prove it…[/quote]

Cognito Ergo Sum.

It’s an assumption we must make in order to make ANY sort of argument about ANYTHING.

But in reality, no, I don’t think we truly can.

127

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

1)He just wrote about a teapot. Are you insinuating that you can prove God (or a non-human) wrote the bible? Majority thought as an argument is a fallacy.

Perhaps, but as I stated that “thought” is in fact based upon much evidence which many discount who don’t want to believe.

There is evidence, one can either turn away, or embrace it.

  1. God loves us. God threw us out of paradise because we did something we didn’t know was wrong.

It’s not my desire to start quoting Bible verses. But this one might shed a little light on your statement above:

Genesis 2:16-17, “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’”

Clearly they knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

Go figure.

Is Jesus God’s son, God, or God’s son whose also God? I’ve never really gotten this and I’ve read the new testament through. Monotheism + Saints + Trinity = WTF?

I think this one, after the virgin birth probably bothers more people than just about anything in the Bible.

The term “Godhead,” refers to the three-in-one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and can be found in Acts 17:29and Colossians 2:9.

Quite mysterious huh? So, it’s not true?

By the way, the concept of the Godhead (Trinity) is evident in scripture as early as the first chapter of the book of Genesis.

  1. Based on everything we know, we cannot say whether God exists or not, and if he does, what he/she/it/everything is like. Therefore, everything in an argument about God is about faith.

I could not agree with you more. In fact, it says in the Bible that “it is impossible to please God without faith.” (Hebrews 11:6).

Faith is pretty important stuff.

Why? Good question huh?

To have faith, one must have doubt.

I’ve also heard that the absence of faith is despair.

There is no logical argument for or against God. God is not logical. Atheism is not logical. None of it is based in logical thought. It’s all faith, and therefore, damn near impossible to argue.

Pretty nearly impossible, but that doesn’t stop us.

:wink:

[/quote]

  1. What evidence?

  2. They were pure beings. They didn’t know what ‘wrong’ is. How could they know it was ‘wrong’ to disobey God? They didn’t know evil. At all. Therefore, they didn’t know disobeying God was evil.

  3. The second you ‘prove’ God, or even try, you no longer have faith. You are trying to justify your belief, meaning your faith is not enough.

  4. The Godhead still confuses me. You will believe in no God but me, but people pray to Saints all the time. People pray to Jesus/the Holy Spirit. I don’t get it. (Note: I’m not just pointing out a contradiction, I really don’t understand this whole thing).

And IF God does exist (in whatever form God is) we have no idea of know what God is like, what God values, or even IF God values.

For all we know, only devout Atheists go to Heaven. Or maybe mass murderers are given eternal bliss, for setting so many souls free.

We just don’t know.

That’s where faith comes in.

128

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
deputydawg wrote:
As I understand it, the Big Bang model is the the currently accepted scientific model.

But which one? Currently there are at least 3 other models of the Big Bang:

  1. Hartle-Hawking Boundary condition
  2. brane cosmology (rooted in string theory)
  3. chaotic inflation

The “Big Bang” theory is used to appease those people who need a “universal genesis” but whom cannot rely on creationism to explain their existence. There may never have been a literal “beginning”.[/quote]

True.

I mean, what’s more believable, an all powerful, all knowing, infinite being who created the universe. Or an infinite universe?

129

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
kroby wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therefore, if a thing (whatever it might be) cannot be explained you do not believe in its existence?

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

Yes, I understand your position. But, my question remains: how can you be certain?

The Bible It is incomplete, and therefore flawed.

But, how do you know? You are guessing it’s incomplete? What do you base this “reality” on?

A thing can exist without explanation.

Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.

Thank you again, ZEB, for this opportunity.

You’re welcome. Thank you.

  1. Can one be 100% certain that god, zeus, thor, odin, appollon… doesen’t exist? No… Can i be 100% certain that a silver teapot isn’t circling around a sun 2234 lightyears away, controlling the universe? No… Are any of the above plausible in any way? No… am i 99.9% certain that neither of them exist? YES!

  2. The bible is incoherent, self-contradictory and filled with weird translations and ofcourse: FILLED with gruesome hate and a god that seems like a jealous, vindictive and petty god… does that make him more realistic? no.

3)“Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.”

you miss “possible” with “plausible”

is it possible? well… yeah, theoretically… is it plausible? No, there is no indication, WHAT SO EVER…

Can you prove 100% you exist? I believe you exist, but can you prove it…

This is just retarded. Ofcourse, in the framework of rationality, I can prove that I exist. What is it with the total disregard for scientific method so many here show?

Use what ever method you like. It doesn’t matter what you will find is that it’s much harder than you think it is when you start breaking things down. It is not retarded. What’s retarded is trusting your five senses to tell you everything there is to be known. There are things that exist that cannot be detected with sight, touch, taste, hearing, or smell.

Whether or not your believe in God, raising the question at all automatically dumps you in the realm of metaphysics. Many of the great philosophers through out time have not been able to prove in a logical, deductive manner that they exist much less anything else.

Descarte was the closest in my opinion, but not perfect. He skipped a step with the whole “I think, therefore I am” thing. You brought up the question with your analogies. I am simply turning it introspective.

Do i feel, see or… sense all waves? No, can i measure them? Yes.

These mytic, medival ways of thinking is… disturbing.
[/quote]

Seems like you ducking the question to me. Your logical fallacy is called argumentum ad ignorantiam

130

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
kroby wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therefore, if a thing (whatever it might be) cannot be explained you do not believe in its existence?

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

Yes, I understand your position. But, my question remains: how can you be certain?

The Bible It is incomplete, and therefore flawed.

But, how do you know? You are guessing it’s incomplete? What do you base this “reality” on?

A thing can exist without explanation.

Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.

Thank you again, ZEB, for this opportunity.

You’re welcome. Thank you.

  1. Can one be 100% certain that god, zeus, thor, odin, appollon… doesen’t exist? No… Can i be 100% certain that a silver teapot isn’t circling around a sun 2234 lightyears away, controlling the universe? No… Are any of the above plausible in any way? No… am i 99.9% certain that neither of them exist? YES!

  2. The bible is incoherent, self-contradictory and filled with weird translations and ofcourse: FILLED with gruesome hate and a god that seems like a jealous, vindictive and petty god… does that make him more realistic? no.

3)“Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.”

you miss “possible” with “plausible”

is it possible? well… yeah, theoretically… is it plausible? No, there is no indication, WHAT SO EVER…

Can you prove 100% you exist? I believe you exist, but can you prove it…

This is just retarded. Ofcourse, in the framework of rationality, I can prove that I exist. What is it with the total disregard for scientific method so many here show?

Use what ever method you like. It doesn’t matter what you will find is that it’s much harder than you think it is when you start breaking things down. It is not retarded. What’s retarded is trusting your five senses to tell you everything there is to be known. There are things that exist that cannot be detected with sight, touch, taste, hearing, or smell.

Whether or not your believe in God, raising the question at all automatically dumps you in the realm of metaphysics. Many of the great philosophers through out time have not been able to prove in a logical, deductive manner that they exist much less anything else.

Descarte was the closest in my opinion, but not perfect. He skipped a step with the whole “I think, therefore I am” thing. You brought up the question with your analogies. I am simply turning it introspective.

Do i feel, see or… sense all waves? No, can i measure them? Yes.

These mytic, medival ways of thinking is… disturbing.

Seems like you ducking the question to me. Your logical fallacy is called argumentum ad ignorantiam[/quote]

Which question? if you try to form a rational, mature and sound question, I’ll answer.

131

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

This is just retarded. Ofcourse, in the framework of rationality, I can prove that I exist. What is it with the total disregard for scientific method so many here show?

So you can prove you exist in reality as opposed to a dream or an illusionary state?

There is no real way of proving whether you exist in “reality” as opposed to existing in a dream state…

Again, that is a exercise in futility. Ofcourse we can be the mind-games of a demon, or the pieces of a large, long-time simulation in a highly developed computer simulation. But that train of thought is just useless and futile. And more: it is not a respons to “can you rationally defend the existance of god”, it is more the exact opposite.

[/quote]

Boy your a belly full of arrogance. If you can prove God doesn’t exist, I’ll follow your lead. Other than name calling and insulting all you’ve really said in a nutshell is “I am right and your are wrong”. I guess we’re supposed to take your word for it based on your riviting and complete arguments. The bottom line is that you can’t prove it, any of it and you know it.

132

i have to admit i feel kind of stupid for starting this thread now

133

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Which question? if you try to form a rational, mature and sound question, I’ll answer.
[/quote]

Prove anything exists, deductively and irrefutably.

134

[quote]pookie wrote:

And what informs that inquiry, if not reason?
[/quote]

Reason most definitely informs that inquiry - I never said different.

EDIT: I should add to clarify - Reason is necessary to the inquiry, but it is not sufficient.

135

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pookie wrote:

And what informs that inquiry, if not reason?

Reason most definitely informs that inquiry - I never said different.

EDIT: I should add to clarify - Reason is necessary to the inquiry, but it is not sufficient.
[/quote]

Yes, and that’s what I meant by my question: what is it that’s required, other than reason, to properly conduct that inquiry?

136

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Thinking that their way is the right way and everyone else is damned.

But there usually is a “right way” and a wrong way to perform most tasks. And certainly an optimum way to live.

That depends how far you want to go. Everyone is different in their definition of “the good life”.[/quote]

Everyone might be different, but there is still an “optimum” way.

Interesting how you use the word “optimum”. I wonder if it’s “optimum” for your liver? Point being, what you “like” might not be what’s “optimum”. And so it goes with God.

I am not the guy who has said that anyone is going to hell. That’s not my determination to make, it’s Gods.

Just keep in mind one question:

if there is a heaven will being “a good shit” get you in?

Fair question?

[quote]

What drove you away from the Catholic church, specifically?

The hypocrisy, the absolute power they held for so many years over certain countries, the deaths caused over their beliefs, the fact that they crucified scientists that didn’t agree, the fact that they refuse to move forward into this century…

The Pope, all the popes, need to know that the world is not seventeenth century Ireland anymore, and their influence is limited. I know they would love to keep everyone in the dark about everything, and pretend like science is some flagrant abomination meant to tear down the walls of human morality, but it just ain’t so. When they learn that, I’ll give a fuck what they say again.[/quote]

I’ve spoken to quite a few disillusioned former Catholics. I’ll say to you the same think that I said to them.

Man sins, period.

Don’t let man keep you from God.

[quote]
Agreed. But we don’t go bomb McDonald’s because we think it’s a crime to not be in shape, and Louie Simmons does not fly planes into Matt Furey’s house in order to prove, once and for all, that Westside rules. get my drift? I understand the analogy, but the stakes in this are far larger than any system of lifting barbells.[/quote]

[quote]Louie Simmons gets results. It’s on his board- his guys are some of the strongest in the country, and everyone else is amazed.

There are no competitions in religion, nowhere to place stats and numbers and prove that once in for all, “THIS SHIT WORKS.”[/quote]

True enough, and maybe that’s where we end the comparison. But, you can tell by how someone lives their life. Just as you correctly judged the various problems in the Catholic church.

There is the “fruit” of ones life for all to see.

[quote]
I’m not saying you can’t adhere to it- but it’s no excuse to not question every word out of their mouth, because those bastards are no closer to God then I.[/quote]

The person who is closest to God does Gods will.

Next time you take an action, any action ask yourself if it is the sort of action that brings you closer to God. Or, is it the sort of action that is merely seeking to gratify the flesh.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that all “flesh gratification” is bad. I think you know what I mean.

[quote]
I know that there have been archeological digs that have verified certain stories in the Bible as true.

Right. But every ancient civilization, from the Egyptians to the Mayans, have a myth of a great flood. All of them have creation myths which could be linked to form stories, etc. I’m not saying the whole thing is untrue, maybe that came out wrong. What I am saying is that it is not infallible, and many things in it are either unprovable or extreemely exagerrated.[/quote]

Forgive me pal, but that’s pure speculation on your part. I someone would have to do a very deep study in order to draw such a conclusion, either way.

You are assuming.

And what is it they say about people who assume?

[quote]
I mean, not for nuthin, but if God blew up Soddom and Gomorrah, wouldn’t he have a field day with Vegas? [/quote]

You actually made me belly laugh with that one. You have a way of doing that more than you know.

Anyway, no he wouldn’t do that. When Christ entered the picture the age of faith and forgiveness was launched. I could tell you more on that now, but I don’t want you to fall asleep.

You make me laugh sometimes…and I put you to sleep?

Hey that’s not fair.

LMAO

Yea, they messed up something awful. But again, you’re not following man (or at least I hope you’re not). You’re trying to follow God.

137

[quote]kroby wrote:
Wait a tick. I just had an epiphany.

The God of the Bible does exist. It’s just not the totality of God. An incomplete God, if you will. God with a small g.

What a relief. No sarcasm intended.[/quote]

Hey you might be on to something.

That might be all of the God that he wants us to see, at least for now.

138

Zeb, you just very much insinuated that you believe we’re all going to Hell. The fact that you talk about leaving it up to God doesn’t mean you believe it any less, it just means you’re afriad to admit it.

I ask you this- why do you fraternize with people whom you believe are going to Hell? What could be more serious than eternal damnation?

139

[quote]pookie wrote:

Yes, and that’s what I meant by my question: what is it that’s required, other than reason, to properly conduct that inquiry?
[/quote]

Among others: instinct, intuition, evidentiary induction, and morality.

140

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

  1. So writing about something makes it true? Hamlet is some divine love god? :wink: No, “existance” does not follow logically from “being written about”.[/quote]

I think we may have had this debate another time. But, There have been several Roman writers who mentioned Jesus Christ in their historical writings. They were not writing fiction. They were writing history.

As I’ve said before, there have been enough archeological digs to shore up anyones belief in the Old Testament. People wrote down what they saw and experienced. You are obviously free not to believe it. You are also free not to believe that Plato and Aristotle did not exist. It was a long time ago right?

Nope, one version. I know which web site you got that from and it’s misleading to say the least.

You know I think I know where you found this nonsense.

I told someone else to stay off of those goofy anti-Christian web sites. They throw out more crap than the New York City sewer system.

There is no contradiction at all in what you’ve posted.

I’ll explain as briefly as I can:

Matthews gospel was written for the Jewish people. Matthew begins with Abraham, the “Father” of the Jewish nation, then follows the line through David the King. Each individual that Matthew lists is of royal lineage. This gives evidence of the royal blood line of Jesus.

You see during the first century if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son received the fathers lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father.

Lukes gospel on the other hand was written primarily for greeks. Hence, he traces the lineage through his mother, Mary.

To further complicate the matter not many people are aware that Joseph and Mary were in fact first cousins. While this would be a big no no in the modern times, it was common place 2000 years ago.

So one traces through Mary and the other through Joseph. And Mary and Joseph were actually related.

No contradiction at all.

[quote]3) There are no rational indications… it is a simple as that.
[/quote]

That would depend on exactly how you define a “rational indication.”

There is a great amount of evidence that Jesus Christ did in fact live. Those who deny his existence are basically in denial.

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, there have been many archeological digs that have demonstrated various Biblical accounts to in fact be historical.

Faith is a funny thing, if someone does not want to believe he will find reasons not to. And to be fair if someone does want to believe there are an abundance of indications which would lead him to.