Poolerthem
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 275
God - does he exist?
- Thread starter chosen_one
- Start date
You most likely have no education in your religion, at leasst thats what it sounds like. Im catholic, so what our people think is that god has given everyone a soul. Your soul gives you intellect and free will. Using those two things, you can decide what is right and what is wrong. Theyre your actions and no one elses. God isnt necessarily going to save you from dieing if you are. You cant test him.
First, please learn some grammar and put it to some use.
Secondly, I posted a response to your post beforehand, but then I received a server error so it must of not posted.
So I'll repost it here.
Basically, what sn1per was trying to say, and explained above was that you won't have any more bad things happen to you whether you're an atheist, or a Christian. God protects us yes, but not so much in a physical sense.
Although He can, like sn1per said, even if you're very holy, or follow God, and somehow, something bad happens to you. You can still die just as easily, but some do live. It's what some call miracles.
C
Cruel__Machine
Guest
God cannot do everything.
It even says in the Bible that God cannot lie.
It's not a paradox, it's an impossibility, as is the existence of anything with contradictory attributes.
You are looking at this in the wrong sense
No, God did not lie. He can do both. How you may ask? Well, oh yeah, science can't explain it so it must be impossible or a lie.
Like I stated above, and what some people cannot grasp is that IT IS TOO HIGH ABOVE THE COMPREHENSION AND THINKING OF OUR MINDS. We look at it, and say it's impossible. WE CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO THINK OF A WAY, let alone the entire explanation. Man cannot explain God, and man never will.
jebckr
Guru
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 1,250
My thoughts exactly. I'll never know. What I do know is I have stopped going to church simply because 9/10 people there are worse morally than I am. And I'm no saint. Hypocracy is a shamefull thing.
C
Cruel__Machine
Guest
So what did Paul really mean when he said God cannot lie?
That he has not lied? What a convenient and irrational interpretation...
That he has not lied? What a convenient and irrational interpretation...
You know nine out of ten people at your church are worse morally than you how? It very well may be true, but then again, why should that affect you?
The church is NOT a museum for the saints, it is a hospital for the sinners. Think about the meaning of that some time.
Secondly, grammar is kind of a "thing" of mine if you would like to call it.
Shameful is spelled wrong, and "Hypocracy" isn't even a word.
jebckr
Guru
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 1,250
This is why I hate the Something for all section. You get criticized for anything you post.
None the less, you make a good point about the hospital for sinners. Still I look at it like if that's what christianity does for them I don't feel any obligation to be a part of it.
None the less, you make a good point about the hospital for sinners. Still I look at it like if that's what christianity does for them I don't feel any obligation to be a part of it.
chosen_one
Guru
I see some good and logical points here, but what is the possiblity of a world in another dimension, different to our universe and how can it be possible if it was true
Tyson
Apprentice
There is no way to prove god existed, only thing you can prove is jesus existed.
Aiman
Forum Addict
By the way,god nothing same in comparison with the human.Why would god have same common thing with the creature God Created? And God is not a he or she.God has nothing incommon with human. Btw we're all kids and teenagers here in sythe and you probably just wasting your time searching for answer in this section and debating here is completely waste of time. The End
Well, if you think you're being criticized badly here, wait till you hit the real world, because it is much, much worse.
Secondly, I'm glad you liked the quote, and hope you understood it in the way I was trying to get it across.
You say if that's what Christianity does for them, you don't feel you need to do it. Think of it this way, they are at least trying, what can you say for yourself?
jebckr
Guru
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 1,250
You call it trying, but I see it differently. I see a group of people brought up in the church, being taught that God is the only answer. Any other views on existance is blasphemy towards your creator. I don't really believe most of them try, rather they don't know what else to believe and choose to stick with what they have been told as opposed to seeking out something else. They want to conform, they want to have meaning. Essentially they are not trying to think out of the box, basically they are not trying to expand their knowledge of their own existence. I am trying to look beyond what I have been taught from an early age. I am trying to understand, not just conforming.
Now don't think I have anything against a persons beliefs. As a matter of fact, most of my friend are christian and I have no problem with it, nor do I knock it.
Pascal's Wager comes to mind when I read this thread:
"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite."
Basically for anyone that cant be bothered to read that he said if god doesnt exist and you worship him, you lose nothing. If he does exist and you dont worship him, you lose everything.
Personnaly Im not Christian and I dont go to church. Just wanted to put this random point in.
"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite."
Basically for anyone that cant be bothered to read that he said if god doesnt exist and you worship him, you lose nothing. If he does exist and you dont worship him, you lose everything.
Personnaly Im not Christian and I dont go to church. Just wanted to put this random point in.
D
dakotasoukup
Guest
yes he does og to church kids
dpunk
Guru
Pascal's Wager could work, but in this situation there are more than two variables. You have not believing in a God, and then you have a multitude, possibly an infinite number of Gods that you can believe in. Almost all of the religions today are mutually exclusive. How are you to know which one is right when they all seem equally wrong? Maybe we don't know anything about the "true" God. Maybe, in order for you to have a pleasant afterlife, you must deny all of the religions of the world. There are too many different choices you could make that all have the same chance of being right.