V00: >If you are an atheist, what what you consider >proof existence of a God ? I'm agnostic, but I think my requirements would remain the same even if I were athiest: His/Her/It's work would need to survive testing. >How would one differentiate between >a God or say some deranged person >claiming to be one ? See above. JB
Hey guys, Just want to convey that I have great respect for science. After all, my belief is that all the things science has given us is rooted in a Creator/Designer. Can I prove it? No. Can I, with my words, prove/explain the existance of God? No. But...to me the universe, and all that it has in it, is proof. I reiterate "to me" here. I know that a non-believer doesn't put much stock in Scripture but I do. I believe it. I believe it is God's Word revealed to man. I know it's an old, old book and as a non-believer you might think I'm stupid... in some ways (not for believing) I probably am. I believe what it says in Romans chapter 1 verses 18-23 concerning the Creator and creation: 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. I posted a series of questions on 4-21-08 04:26AM that are sincere questions to me that would seem to elude to the non-believer that just maybe a Creator/Designer/Higher Power/God could exist. Or you can just keep on believing in the nothing x nothing=everything equation. At least if God is given the credit for being the cause of the effect (you have to have a cause to get an effect, don't you?) you would advance one step further toward how it all began, right? It's just that I wander how that when certain scientists discovered/discover something that they couldn't figure out the answer to, the possibility of God being behind it is left out altogether. They say there is no proof of God yet they had/have no proof in their theories either. They would no longer be theories if they could be proved. It's like certain scientists had/have the thinking..."Well, we can't figure this out so let's just say it happened all by itself. Any explanation will suffice as long as we don't give credit or acknowledge a Higher Power (God/Creator/Designer)." The stance that some take is that miraculous incidents do not occur or miracles do not exist when, we all know, unexplainable things happen all the time with science I mean... if you could explain it then it wouldn't be a miracle. And, If I may point out, there are a lot of scientist that have contributed a great deal to different studies that are believers. Listen guys... I am very sincere when I ask this next question so I hope each one of you that is a non-believer will give me a sincere answer and not some silly remark that is not worth reading. Because I can tell that some of you have given this a lot of thought. Also, I am not asking this next question to put down your response or anything like that... although I may have more questions for you after I read your responses. I realize that there is a god on every corner but I'm refering here to the God that I worship. The God of the Bible. My question is: Why do you choose NOT to believe He exists? Look forward to the sincere responses. rc
Hi Turok, I really dont want to argue here with you man, nor to fight your point of view! The hell is not made for men and God wants no one to see there, really no one. My thoughts on this and last statement in this thread is: God hates sin, only because it hurts us. He would never hate a sinner. Like any good parent, I'd never hate my son no matter what he does. I love him. Sin hurts God because it hurts his kids. And sin has consequences, not punishments. If I stick my finger in a light socket, the light socket doesn't punish me with the resulting shock. It's a consequence. The consequences of our sin is separation from God actually by our own choice. The remedy to separation from God and sin is found in Jesus Christ. I firmly believe that we should stop concentrating on sin and start concentrating on loving God. Once you really love and respect someone you want to please them by choice. I feel that is what God wants from us. Who wants someone to be with them out of fear? Focusing on sin instills fear. Focusing on love results in a better relationship with God, and sin ceases by default. Saico
A couple of things... 1. A scientific theory is not a theory in the common sense use of the word or hunch. Think of gravity (general theory of relativity). Don't know exactly what it is but it's existence (effect) is undeniable and predictable. Well same goes with the theory of evolution. Not 100% sure what guides it, but the fact of its occurrence is undeniable. So what is a scientific theory? "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation." Scientific fact (law) and theory are mostly interchangeable. 2. Believing in a higher power WILL NOT score you any points. The bible is specific about WHICH higher power one should believe in in order to be saved. But then again, all religions claim to be the one and only god(s). So how does one go about figuring out which religion is the true religion? 3. The notion of choosing to believe is flawed. I ask you to attempt to believe that 2+2=5. Tricky ain't it? Of course. One cannot choose to believe something for which either has no proof, no appeal, or they know to be false. They believe something because it appeals to or coincides with their sensibility and worldview. In other words, you don't choose to believe in anything. You either do or don't. You can't make yourself believe. For instance, someone might say, "I choose to believe that the next president will heal the country." Well the reality is, is that they HOPE the next president will heal the county. If they are more specific and say something like, "I choose to believe Huckabee will be the next president", that's called wishful thinking. Just light examples of a deeper subject in order to get you on the thinking track. So why not choose to believe that the Koran is the truth as opposed to the bible? Or the Bhagavad Gita? Or Greek/Roman mythology? Or pagan rites? 4. You're advocating "God in/of the gaps." What do I mean by that? If science can't explain something, you suggest that they just chalk it up to God having done it. Problem is, you are asserting that it is the God you believe in while omitting the other gods that people believe in. So which God did it? Just another level of complication. Occam's razor suggests that the simplest answer is best and sometimes the simplest answer is, "we don't know yet" or that all processes are naturally occurring. Add a god (who knows which one) to the mix only serves to complicate matters greatly because we'd have to figure out (assuming that we narrowed it down to one god or group of related gods as appearing to be responsible) at what point did this god(s) intervene in an otherwise natural occurrance? Did the God(s) start it as a mathematical equation that unfolds over time or does this god micro manage? We can't go by the holy books because they are not books of science and are silent on the matter in many cases. See what I mean? That's just part of the reason why science "omits" god. When the integrated circuit was designed, how would one go about interjecting god into the research? Is it of any worth to say that God designed the universe such that silicon and copper would have certain predictable properties? 5. Miracles. What really is a miracle? Can we rule out coincidence? Will the unexplained today remain the unexplained tomorrow? Or will what constitutes a miracle today never become a matter of science tomorrow? What exactly constitutes a miracle? Have you ever seen one? Better yet, have you experienced one? Is life a miracle or a predictable chemical process? At what improbability level does would an event transcend from extremely low likelihood to 1 tick before it becomes impossible? In other words, how do we distinguish a miracle from a chance occurance or natural phemonena? 6. That passage in Romans. All well and good. But if you change an attribute of God, while calling yourself a Christian, realize that you're not a Christian at all and have effectively created another God. Bible speaks of a sovereign omniscient God. Logic dictates that with the presence of such a God who is also omnipresent (which disallows the presence of any other god otherwise he would not be omnipresent) there can be no free will beings at all. Bible confirms this logic by declaring such things as predestination and prophecy. Both of which cannot work if free will is enabled. The bible is littered with examples that support both concepts. And what's more, in the book of Job, Job's friends were deemed to have sinned (not having said what was right concerning god) for not declaring the proper attributes of God. many people reading that book completely miss that fact. They also miss who is responsible for Job's suffering much like his 3 friends did. See the last chapter of the book. Pay particular attention to verse 11. Also, if you run around saying that "God loves you man" you are also creating a different god than the one in the bible. God of the bible does NOT love everyone. Some are his children (predestined saints which he loves dearly) and the others are not. "God is love" in epistle of John does not translate into "God is a loving God." God is also quoted as hating those who he has not chosen to himself. Take Esau for instance. See Romans on that. Does god want everyone to be saved? If you run around saying that, again, you've created a different god. Even conceptually we know from reading that the bible god doesn't go about like that. He's all about exclusivity. He starts off choosing a people to himself while letting the other cultures around him worship "false" gods because he hadn't revealed himself to them. He stops pharoah from obeying. (see Exodus) He send string delusion to prevent people from believing. (see 2nd Thess 2:9-11) He speaks in parables to prevent many from understanding and thus perhaps believing. (mark 4:11-12) Invites many but choses few. see matt 22:14) And on and on. So as you can see, quite a few obstacles to overcome.
Problem with what you are thinking is that hell is not a punishment. Punishment implies the possibility of rehabilitation, i.e. something to be learned. Jesus said it best. Hell is torment. What's more, hell isn't forever. Inhabitants are said to get a reprieve for judgment day then are cast into the lake of fire forever. Out of the frying pan and into the fire type of scenario. So your analogy about a parent in relation to a child fails to the core as you wouldn't burn you kid for being disobedient, forever and ever. In fact, you knowingly wouldn't harm your child past the point of teaching a lesson. Perhaps a spanking or harsh verbal condemnation. And you do this because you want your child to be a good citizen when they grow up. Moreover, because you love them. Threat of hell is a poor carrot stick. A place no one has ever seen and come back to say, "don't go there!" is meaningless in so far as trying to demonstrate "God's love."
Well, let's start with proving some of the things in religious texts. That would be enough evidence to suggest that this or that God is real. As to the seemingly deranged person, like the poster "I AM," all we would have to do is to ask them to show us a bit of magic.
saico: >Once you really love and respect someone you >want to please them by choice. I feel that is what >God wants from us. Yes, "that is what God wants from us.", and if he doesn't get it he's gonna take out his "wrath" (biblical term) on you and burn you in hell. I repeat ... who in their right mind would respect a god like that? JB PS: In a world of *good* parenting, your analogy falls on it's face. No loving parent will take out their "wrath" and "anger" (all from the bible) on their child if they do something wrong -- punishment should be fair, appropriate and administered with love, not anger.
Just to remember the good words that started this thread (which, unfortunately, became so convoluted, loud and tortured afterwards,) Orthodox Easter is this coming Sunday, the greatest Christian feast of the year. So, as they say in the old country, "Kalo Pascha" everyone!
rcn: >My question is: Why do you choose NOT to >believe He exists? Why do you "choose NOT to believe" in the many gods that you don't believe in. I suspect that if you look inward, the above question will be answered. But just in case it's not ... I choose to believe those things that can be tested and proven. If you don't hold this belief, I consider you fodder for every nonsensical theory that comes along. For example, while I consider evolution itself a fact, I don't say "I believe" in evolution *as the origin of the species* -- I consider it the best explanation so far, but there are far too many holes in it to say "I believe". Now far more has been proven relating to evolution as the origin of the species than *anything* relating to god -- he's got a long ways to go to catch up. JB