Yeah, it's all a load of rubbish, isn't it. Reminds me of the Father Ted episode where Dougal's questions about the meaning of Catholic faith cause that bishop to acknowledge that it's all a load of crap, and leave the church to become a hippy.
With respect, is there a touch of sarcasm there? :)
I avoided father ted as much as possible, so I have no idea to what you refer to - soz.
Death, you're begging the question 'why do you want a reply when you do not care for the answer?' :)
I don't think I was asking for a reply, just the right to be left alone with my own beliefs - If god does not exist, then all religions are in error, what's to discuss?
Death, you're begging the question 'why do you want a reply when you do not care for the answer?' :)
The way I see it is this (probably completely wrong as usual).
Even those that don't believe...secretly would love for it to be true...no one wants to die and thats that..nothing else.
There are many questions as to if god does exist why does he allow certain things to happen.
There are also many answers to those questions.....free will, maybe he put us here and sits back and sees what happens....how can we be judged if we are not masters of our own destiny? etc etc.
I'm an agnostic..but would like to believe...but quite can't bring myself to believe....But at the end of the day(s!). I would be very happy if there was 'something'.
I still want to know who his dad was.
you'd think he'd have come forward and admitted it, seeing as Jesus was the son of God, therefore, by definition his dad must have been God.
it's not every man who gets mistaken for a deity just because he got a married woman pregnant :-) in fact, that's the only case I can think of :lol:
I'm sure if someone calls the CSA they will find him soon enough. That's one hefty bill coming his way.
I don't think I was asking for a reply, just the right to be left alone with my own beliefs - If god does not exist, then all religions are in error, what's to discuss?
With respect, is there a touch of sarcasm there? :)
I avoided father ted as much as possible, so I have no idea to what you refer to - soz.
No sarcasm there at all!
One of the main points about Father Ted is that it pokes fun at the entire institution of the Catholic Church. Dougal (the simple-minded "collect 3 tokens and become a priest" one) is questioning why, for example, in the past it was forbidden for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays. Yet today it's OK. So does that mean that all the people who eat meat on Fridays in the past went to hell? The bishop agrees that it's all nonsense, and decides to become a hippy instead.
There are also many answers to those questions.....free will, maybe he put us here and sits back and sees what happens....how can we be judged if we are not masters of our own destiny? etc etc.
Ah yes, I like this one.
Right, I am supposed to be a creation of god. God apparently knows what I am going to do before I do it - it's the "all knowing" claim held by many faiths. This being so, it would know what I am going to do in any situation etc, regardless. Judge me, judge my omniescent creator! Another myth busted :)
One of the main points about Father Ted is that it pokes fun at the entire institution of the Catholic Church. Dougal (the simple-minded "collect 3 tokens and become a priest" one) is questioning why, for example, in the past it was forbidden for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays. Yet today it's OK. So does that mean that all the people who eat meat on Fridays in the past went to hell? The bishop agrees that it's all nonsense, and decides to become a hippy instead.
Cool, no problems, I just read it wrong. See, I'm expecting huge flames from members of the forum, so maybe I'm a little defensive right now. I really don't like taking pot shots at people's beliefs - but I really do not understand why and how they can believe such obvious lies.
That's the rub though. We don't really know anything about people who lived that long ago, other than by what they wrote or what other people wrote about them. Whether they were actually anything like that, especially when practically all we know about them is from their devotees and sycophants, is highly dubious.
spot on, it's like Rimmer's "Scott and Oates" speech in Red Dwarf
Kryten: I beg you to reconsider, Sir. Human history is resplendent with examples of such sacrifice. Remember Captain Oates: "I'm going out for a walk. I may be some time." Rimmer: Yes, but the thing is, about Captain Oates; the thing you have to remember about Captain Oates; Captain Oates... Captain Oates was a prat. If that'd been me, I'd've stayed in the tent, whacked Scott over the head with a frozen husky, and then eaten him. Lister: You would too, wouldn't you? Rimmer: History, Lister, is written by the winners. How do we know that Oates went out for this legendary walk? From the only surviving document: Scott's diary. And he's hardly likely to have written down, "February the First, bludgeoned Oates to death while he slept, then scoffed him along with the last packet of instant mash." How's that going to look when he gets rescued, eh? No, much better to say, "Oates made the supreme sacrifice," while you're dabbing up his gravy with the last piece of crusty bread.
Why does God (the one I was brought up to believe in), the all powerful all knowing power of ultimate good, need me, something he created, to battle Satan for him? Why can't this all powerful force of good get rid of satan once and for all? Because he can't? - In which case, he ain't that strong. Because he can't be bothered? In which case, he ain't so perfect! 'Cos it isn'ty that simple? Ah, but something as powerful as god could make it so, right? Well, I'd have thought so anyway. Sorry, but if I gave a crap, I could feel very let down about the whole thing.
Why does this god let his children die or kill in his name? Would any parent on this forum let their child kill another for your love? Would any parent on this forum be happy if their child killed their brother or sister?
Any serious study of religion has to get past the simplistic symbolism that outsiders (and many lax practitioners) make of it.
Consider free will and its importance to a sentient self-aware being (who may or may not have been created in God's image) -- how does that fit into what's written above?
Of course, if somebody chooses to see things differently, that's fine - just don't bother to tell me all about it and tell me I'm wrong - cos you can't prove you're right, and besides, I don't want to know. Greater minds than mine have been trying to prove things one way or the other for 2,000 years now - they've failed, so why should I bother?
(sticks fingers in ears) fa-la-la-la-la-la ;)
Things like people claiming to know the true word of god etc are obvious liars - even if they believe what they say to be true. You cannot base a faith upon what people say - or indeed what they don't say. You can only base a belief in something that is factual, as anything else is pure folly. You can believe yopu can fly as much as you want, you can even truly believe it.
If it's factual it's a fact, not a belief. Belief is a conviction in the absence of evidence, like atheism or christianity. Atheists probably prefer to call their belief a hypothesis.
You and I and everyone have many, many beliefs and operate on them all day long. For example I do believe that treating others well will result in reciprocation and an overall better world so I try to do that in my daily life. We also take the word of others without proof of our own; the religious accept teachings of their leaders but you may accept teachings of scientists, the rhetoric of politicians or the events of the world as relayed by your local news agency without any direct proof or direct experience of your own. There are also many core beliefs in science, where they are called axioms and atoms. For example one belief is that the laws of nature that we observe in this little teeny-tiny insignificant spec of the universe are the same that operate throughout the entire unimaginably huge universe.
Western thinking took an important turn during the renaissance in that it went from a largely philosophical train of thought to an experiential one. The experiential one is a very profitable line of reasoning as it has led (and will lead) to an ever increasing understanding of the material world. But what we've lost is any understanding of the whys. This line has also become so strong that people assume it is a substitute for meaning. Newton's laws are great for predicting where an apple will be at every moment when dropped but does "F=GMm/r^2" actual *explain* anything? Does it tell you what gravity is and why?
This isn't quite what I want to say - it'll have to do tho since I don't really have the vocabulary to express this properly.
Monty Mole, my gullible foo, er, my faithful believer, thou shalt do my biddest, as I am the only true bringer of the true truth.
Here are my commandments for you, my son:
1. Though shalt give me all thou'st money, 'cos money is evil, so I'll spen- er dispose of the sinful accursed stuff for you.
2. Thou shalt only believe what I do tell thee, and not be influenced by any proof or facts to the contrary. If any worldly fact seems to agree with my teachings, then 'tis proof positive that I am right. If any worldly fact doth seem to contradict me, then 'tis proof that man doth not understand what he see'th, which in turneth meaneth that I ameth always righteth and goodeth.
3. If tho'st see'eth my name'th in the newspapers'th accused'th of some crimes, then knowest thou that I am innocent of all crimes, and anyway the devil made me do it, but God has told me that he forgiveth me, so should you forgive and forget what I didn't doeth anywayeth.
4. Thou shalt stone'th Starglider. Have you read his posts? He deserve'th to be stoned'eth.
ah, that's because that happened in the old testament, the one with the angry, vengeful god who rains fire and brimstone down on sinners, and stomps on infidels with his size fifteen thousand sandals.
the god with the infinite mercy is the kindly one with the fluffy beard from the sequel, erm, I mean new testament
I know, God is portrayed two different ways, one in each Testament. As Aowen once said, it's a consequence of two different eras of myths being tied together.
[/quote]
I'm an atheist too, but that doesn't mean I believe there are no gods any more than I believe there are.[/quote]
I've never heard of "atheism" meaning anything other than someone who catagorically disbelieves in any god at all. I've know a few people who called themselves atheists, and they all claimed to believe that no god at all existed.
[/quote]
they call it implicit atheism according to wikipedia.
you assume I believe there are no gods, just because I don't believe there are gods. it's not the same. I couldn't care less whether there's a god or not, cause clearly gods don't actually do anything. they're like aliens, they might be out there, but they never come and park their spaceship outside and come in for tea.[/quote]
I don't clearly see your distinction (you seem to veer towards what I would call agonsticism), and anyway even if atheism means what you claim, then many people, very possibly the majority, would still believe the word atheism to mean what I take it to mean; the absolute belief that no god exists.
[/quote]
it's possible to prove something exists (assuming it does!) but impossible to prove that something doesn't, so the best a religious atheist will get out of me is that I think it is improbable that gods exist.[/quote]
You make two mistakes in that sentence. Firstly, the best a religious atheist can get is to believe that there is no god of any sort, and many atheists do hold that view (every one I've ever met). They are certain (unshakably so) of that.
Secondly, you can prove something does not exist, depending on the circumstance. For example, I might be holding a tube of Smarties in my hand, and I could claim that there are no Smarties in there. You might disbelieve me, but I could easily prove that no smarties exist in the tube at that time. There might have been some smarties in there before (probably were, unless I'd nicked an empty tube from the factory), and might be again, and maybe there are millions and millions of smarties existing outside of that one tube, be they in other tubes, in peoples' mouths, in huge vats waiting to be put in tubes, etc. But no smarties exist in that tube, and I could prove that quite easily.
Yes, proving that God does not exist is almost certainly impossible, but atheists seem to feel that the state of the world/humanity/evil/etc is sufficient proof that god does not exist. That proof doesn't satisfy me, as I'm an agnostic, but it does satisfy friends of mine who are actual atheists. And yes, many people won't count the abismal state of the world and it's flaws as proof of the non-existance of god, but many other people do, and all proof is subjective. Some people class the existance of babies, of life, of the human body as absolute proof that god exists. Personally I'd class the human body as proof that, if god did make us (which I doubt), then he didn't show too much consideration for us.
Right, I am supposed to be a creation of god. God apparently knows what I am going to do before I do it - it's the "all knowing" claim held by many faiths. This being so, it would know what I am going to do in any situation etc, regardless. Judge me, judge my omniescent creator! Another myth busted :)
Well...there are many beliefs. You are concentrating on one that we are all individually the creation of god.
Another belief is that we are not...that he started the engine going but has no input from then on and so we could be judged on our merits and how we spent our time....(I would actually prefer this method if I chose one).
God could exist but not in the 'biblical' sense is what I am saying. I think the bible is a good read regardless of your beliefs...lots of good moral stuff in there....HOWEVER....I don't believe it should be taken as gospel (little joke there), I see it as a rule book for social behavior rather than a religious document
So....in summary....
God could exist
The bible could be/is flawed and so the things quoted are flawed
All we have is written by other humans, therefore flawed/biased.
Errors ARE in the bible. the 616 666 thing? (they recently found the oldest copy of revelations that has 616 and not 666 in it...aledgedly).
The bible was written in another time and when different values were in force....still a great majority of it sill applies today...who can dispute the 10 commandments are a good set of rules?
Yes, proving that God does not exist is almost certainly impossible, but atheists seem to feel that the state of the world/humanity/evil/etc is sufficient proof that god does not exist. That proof doesn't satisfy me, as I'm an agnostic, but it does satisfy friends of mine who are actual atheists. And yes, many people won't count the abismal state of the world and it's flaws as proof of the non-existance of god, but many other people do, and all proof is subjective. Some people class the existance of babies, of life, of the human body as absolute proof that god exists. Personally I'd class the human body as proof that, if god did make us (which I doubt), then he didn't show too much consideration for us.
Well he meant proving that (some sort of a) god doesn't exist somewhere in the entire universe is impossible. To prove that, you would have to examine every point in the universe and observe that there's no god there. You would have to do that at once for the entire universe just in case god happens to move around while you're looking. It's clearly impossible to do that.
Proving that a god isn't present within a tube of smarties, on the other hand, is quite possible; as long as you have your god-viewing glasses on at the time, of course.
Right, I am supposed to be a creation of god. God apparently knows what I am going to do before I do it - it's the "all knowing" claim held by many faiths. This being so, it would know what I am going to do in any situation etc, regardless. Judge me, judge my omniescent creator! Another myth busted :)
Sorry still not busted :) All-knowing does not have to mean knowing the entire course of the universe and its contents for all time. It does have to mean knowing what has already occurred though.
I don't clearly see your distinction (you seem to veer towards what I would call agonsticism), and anyway even if atheism means what you claim, then many people, very possibly the majority, would still believe the word atheism to mean what I take it to mean; the absolute belief that no god exists.
it's all in the words, like I said, atheist means not believing in a god. not believing there is absolutely no god full stop. so in actual fact an agnostic is an atheist too, you don't believe that there is a god, you just think there might be. that's not a believe, that's a speculation
thinking a word means something it doesn't is very common though. Words coming into usage for a meaning other than the correct one is common too, for example organic
You make two mistakes in that sentence. Firstly, the best a religious atheist can get is to believe that there is no god of any sort, and many atheists do hold that view (every one I've ever met). They are certain (unshakably so) of that.
I mean that the best agreement to their rantings they will get out of me is that it's unlikely
Secondly, you can prove something does not exist, depending on the circumstance. For example, I might be holding a tube of Smarties in my hand, and I could claim that there are no Smarties in there. You might disbelieve me, but I could easily prove that no smarties exist in the tube at that time. There might have been some smarties in there before (probably were, unless I'd nicked an empty tube from the factory), and might be again, and maybe there are millions and millions of smarties existing outside of that one tube, be they in other tubes, in peoples' mouths, in huge vats waiting to be put in tubes, etc. But no smarties exist in that tube, and I could prove that quite easily.
that's proving that something is in a particular place or otherwise. but there's no point arguing, cause you know full well what I meant :p I just didn't foolproof the statement :-)
Well he meant proving that (some sort of a) god doesn't exist somewhere in the entire universe is impossible. To prove that, you would have to examine every point in the universe and observe that there's no god there. You would have to do that at once for the entire universe just in case god happens to move around while you're looking. It's clearly impossible to do that.
Proving that a god isn't present within a tube of smarties, on the other hand, is quite possible; as long as you have your god-viewing glasses on at the time, of course.
That still wouldn't prove it.....multiple universe theory time! :)
Well he meant proving that (some sort of a) god doesn't exist somewhere in the entire universe is impossible. To prove that, you would have to examine every point in the universe and observe that there's no god there. You would have to do that at once for the entire universe just in case god happens to move around while you're looking. It's clearly impossible to do that.
Proving that a god isn't present within a tube of smarties, on the other hand, is quite possible; as long as you have your god-viewing glasses on at the time, of course.
exactly what I meant. you can't prove that something you cannot observe is true or false, exists or doesn't exist, until you can observe it, it remains a theory. that's one of the fundamental rules modern science is based on
also it's obvious god isn't in a smartie tube, he wouldn't fit.
I saw him pick homer up on the simpsons, he's massive!
exactly what I meant. you can't prove that something you cannot observe is true or false, exists or doesn't exist, until you can observe it, it remains a theory. that's one of the fundamental rules modern science is based on
I think people should be nice to each other and treat people fairly, whether there are gods or not, and people should be good without having to be threatened with hell to make them behave.
the existence of gods, and peoples beliefs are immaterial
all in favour of being nice whether god exists or not, say 'Aye'
Define what you mean by 'theory' please.
Guesser, no one is being threatened with hell. where do you get that from? It is a moral (spiritual) consequence of not repenting of sins. Analogy: you aren't being threatened with jail, it is the social consequence of breaking the law.
That still wouldn't prove it.....multiple universe theory time! :)
For me, the presence of an infinite number of parallel universes would completely rule out the existence of a god (in the Judao-Christian sense at least). While there's only one universe, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that it had been created, it was special, and some supreme being had some sort of vested interest in it. I just don't think that that could ever hold for multiple universes (unless perhaps the number of universes is finite, and that makes it a contest between all the gods that created them).
I'm inclined towards the multiple universe model - but until that is proven I'm not going to worry too much about it. But it should be easy to prove - you just need to observe a second universe!
I think people should be nice to each other and treat people fairly, whether there are gods or not, and people should be good without having to be threatened with hell to make them behave.
the existence of gods, and peoples beliefs are immaterial
all in favour of being nice whether god exists or not, say 'Aye'
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena? (Einstein came up with that definition apparently)
a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
I think both of those apply to the classical belief that "god made the world and causes miracles and that's where weather and stuff come from" :-)
as well as to scientific theories like black holes and things "maybe there's a big invisible hole in that place with no stars, and thats where all those x-rays are coming from)
Comments
With respect, is there a touch of sarcasm there? :)
I avoided father ted as much as possible, so I have no idea to what you refer to - soz.
I don't think I was asking for a reply, just the right to be left alone with my own beliefs - If god does not exist, then all religions are in error, what's to discuss?
The way I see it is this (probably completely wrong as usual).
Even those that don't believe...secretly would love for it to be true...no one wants to die and thats that..nothing else.
There are many questions as to if god does exist why does he allow certain things to happen.
There are also many answers to those questions.....free will, maybe he put us here and sits back and sees what happens....how can we be judged if we are not masters of our own destiny? etc etc.
I'm an agnostic..but would like to believe...but quite can't bring myself to believe....But at the end of the day(s!). I would be very happy if there was 'something'.
I'm sure if someone calls the CSA they will find him soon enough. That's one hefty bill coming his way.
True, but everything hinges on that 'if' :)
No sarcasm there at all!
One of the main points about Father Ted is that it pokes fun at the entire institution of the Catholic Church. Dougal (the simple-minded "collect 3 tokens and become a priest" one) is questioning why, for example, in the past it was forbidden for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays. Yet today it's OK. So does that mean that all the people who eat meat on Fridays in the past went to hell? The bishop agrees that it's all nonsense, and decides to become a hippy instead.
Ah yes, I like this one.
Right, I am supposed to be a creation of god. God apparently knows what I am going to do before I do it - it's the "all knowing" claim held by many faiths. This being so, it would know what I am going to do in any situation etc, regardless. Judge me, judge my omniescent creator! Another myth busted :)
Cool, no problems, I just read it wrong. See, I'm expecting huge flames from members of the forum, so maybe I'm a little defensive right now. I really don't like taking pot shots at people's beliefs - but I really do not understand why and how they can believe such obvious lies.
Kryten: I beg you to reconsider, Sir. Human history is resplendent with examples of such sacrifice. Remember Captain Oates: "I'm going out for a walk. I may be some time."
Rimmer: Yes, but the thing is, about Captain Oates; the thing you have to remember about Captain Oates; Captain Oates... Captain Oates was a prat. If that'd been me, I'd've stayed in the tent, whacked Scott over the head with a frozen husky, and then eaten him.
Lister: You would too, wouldn't you?
Rimmer: History, Lister, is written by the winners. How do we know that Oates went out for this legendary walk? From the only surviving document: Scott's diary. And he's hardly likely to have written down, "February the First, bludgeoned Oates to death while he slept, then scoffed him along with the last packet of instant mash." How's that going to look when he gets rescued, eh? No, much better to say, "Oates made the supreme sacrifice," while you're dabbing up his gravy with the last piece of crusty bread.
Any serious study of religion has to get past the simplistic symbolism that outsiders (and many lax practitioners) make of it.
Consider free will and its importance to a sentient self-aware being (who may or may not have been created in God's image) -- how does that fit into what's written above?
(sticks fingers in ears) fa-la-la-la-la-la ;)
If it's factual it's a fact, not a belief. Belief is a conviction in the absence of evidence, like atheism or christianity. Atheists probably prefer to call their belief a hypothesis.
You and I and everyone have many, many beliefs and operate on them all day long. For example I do believe that treating others well will result in reciprocation and an overall better world so I try to do that in my daily life. We also take the word of others without proof of our own; the religious accept teachings of their leaders but you may accept teachings of scientists, the rhetoric of politicians or the events of the world as relayed by your local news agency without any direct proof or direct experience of your own. There are also many core beliefs in science, where they are called axioms and atoms. For example one belief is that the laws of nature that we observe in this little teeny-tiny insignificant spec of the universe are the same that operate throughout the entire unimaginably huge universe.
Western thinking took an important turn during the renaissance in that it went from a largely philosophical train of thought to an experiential one. The experiential one is a very profitable line of reasoning as it has led (and will lead) to an ever increasing understanding of the material world. But what we've lost is any understanding of the whys. This line has also become so strong that people assume it is a substitute for meaning. Newton's laws are great for predicting where an apple will be at every moment when dropped but does "F=GMm/r^2" actual *explain* anything? Does it tell you what gravity is and why?
Join the club :)
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
Blimey! My first follower!
Monty Mole, my gullible foo, er, my faithful believer, thou shalt do my biddest, as I am the only true bringer of the true truth.
Here are my commandments for you, my son:
1. Though shalt give me all thou'st money, 'cos money is evil, so I'll spen- er dispose of the sinful accursed stuff for you.
2. Thou shalt only believe what I do tell thee, and not be influenced by any proof or facts to the contrary. If any worldly fact seems to agree with my teachings, then 'tis proof positive that I am right. If any worldly fact doth seem to contradict me, then 'tis proof that man doth not understand what he see'th, which in turneth meaneth that I ameth always righteth and goodeth.
3. If tho'st see'eth my name'th in the newspapers'th accused'th of some crimes, then knowest thou that I am innocent of all crimes, and anyway the devil made me do it, but God has told me that he forgiveth me, so should you forgive and forget what I didn't doeth anywayeth.
4. Thou shalt stone'th Starglider. Have you read his posts? He deserve'th to be stoned'eth.
Actually, you can't satiarise
I know, God is portrayed two different ways, one in each Testament. As Aowen once said, it's a consequence of two different eras of myths being tied together.
[/quote]
I'm an atheist too, but that doesn't mean I believe there are no gods any more than I believe there are.[/quote]
I've never heard of "atheism" meaning anything other than someone who catagorically disbelieves in any god at all. I've know a few people who called themselves atheists, and they all claimed to believe that no god at all existed.
[/quote]
they call it implicit atheism according to wikipedia.
you assume I believe there are no gods, just because I don't believe there are gods. it's not the same. I couldn't care less whether there's a god or not, cause clearly gods don't actually do anything. they're like aliens, they might be out there, but they never come and park their spaceship outside and come in for tea.[/quote]
I don't clearly see your distinction (you seem to veer towards what I would call agonsticism), and anyway even if atheism means what you claim, then many people, very possibly the majority, would still believe the word atheism to mean what I take it to mean; the absolute belief that no god exists.
[/quote]
it's possible to prove something exists (assuming it does!) but impossible to prove that something doesn't, so the best a religious atheist will get out of me is that I think it is improbable that gods exist.[/quote]
You make two mistakes in that sentence. Firstly, the best a religious atheist can get is to believe that there is no god of any sort, and many atheists do hold that view (every one I've ever met). They are certain (unshakably so) of that.
Secondly, you can prove something does not exist, depending on the circumstance. For example, I might be holding a tube of Smarties in my hand, and I could claim that there are no Smarties in there. You might disbelieve me, but I could easily prove that no smarties exist in the tube at that time. There might have been some smarties in there before (probably were, unless I'd nicked an empty tube from the factory), and might be again, and maybe there are millions and millions of smarties existing outside of that one tube, be they in other tubes, in peoples' mouths, in huge vats waiting to be put in tubes, etc. But no smarties exist in that tube, and I could prove that quite easily.
Yes, proving that God does not exist is almost certainly impossible, but atheists seem to feel that the state of the world/humanity/evil/etc is sufficient proof that god does not exist. That proof doesn't satisfy me, as I'm an agnostic, but it does satisfy friends of mine who are actual atheists. And yes, many people won't count the abismal state of the world and it's flaws as proof of the non-existance of god, but many other people do, and all proof is subjective. Some people class the existance of babies, of life, of the human body as absolute proof that god exists. Personally I'd class the human body as proof that, if god did make us (which I doubt), then he didn't show too much consideration for us.
Well...there are many beliefs. You are concentrating on one that we are all individually the creation of god.
Another belief is that we are not...that he started the engine going but has no input from then on and so we could be judged on our merits and how we spent our time....(I would actually prefer this method if I chose one).
God could exist but not in the 'biblical' sense is what I am saying. I think the bible is a good read regardless of your beliefs...lots of good moral stuff in there....HOWEVER....I don't believe it should be taken as gospel (little joke there), I see it as a rule book for social behavior rather than a religious document
So....in summary....
God could exist
The bible could be/is flawed and so the things quoted are flawed
All we have is written by other humans, therefore flawed/biased.
Errors ARE in the bible. the 616 666 thing? (they recently found the oldest copy of revelations that has 616 and not 666 in it...aledgedly).
The bible was written in another time and when different values were in force....still a great majority of it sill applies today...who can dispute the 10 commandments are a good set of rules?
...damn.....I'm getting sucked in!
Well he meant proving that (some sort of a) god doesn't exist somewhere in the entire universe is impossible. To prove that, you would have to examine every point in the universe and observe that there's no god there. You would have to do that at once for the entire universe just in case god happens to move around while you're looking. It's clearly impossible to do that.
Proving that a god isn't present within a tube of smarties, on the other hand, is quite possible; as long as you have your god-viewing glasses on at the time, of course.
Sorry still not busted :) All-knowing does not have to mean knowing the entire course of the universe and its contents for all time. It does have to mean knowing what has already occurred though.
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
thinking a word means something it doesn't is very common though. Words coming into usage for a meaning other than the correct one is common too, for example organic
I mean that the best agreement to their rantings they will get out of me is that it's unlikely
that's proving that something is in a particular place or otherwise. but there's no point arguing, cause you know full well what I meant :p I just didn't foolproof the statement :-)
[/quote]
That still wouldn't prove it.....multiple universe theory time! :)
also it's obvious god isn't in a smartie tube, he wouldn't fit.
I saw him pick homer up on the simpsons, he's massive!
None...I said theory! :p
Meeeeowww! good old Schrodinger
just like the theory of god :-D
the existence of gods, and peoples beliefs are immaterial
all in favour of being nice whether god exists or not, say 'Aye'
Define what you mean by 'theory' please.
Guesser, no one is being threatened with hell. where do you get that from? It is a moral (spiritual) consequence of not repenting of sins. Analogy: you aren't being threatened with jail, it is the social consequence of breaking the law.
For me, the presence of an infinite number of parallel universes would completely rule out the existence of a god (in the Judao-Christian sense at least). While there's only one universe, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that it had been created, it was special, and some supreme being had some sort of vested interest in it. I just don't think that that could ever hold for multiple universes (unless perhaps the number of universes is finite, and that makes it a contest between all the gods that created them).
I'm inclined towards the multiple universe model - but until that is proven I'm not going to worry too much about it. But it should be easy to prove - you just need to observe a second universe!
errr aye by the way (unless your Welsh).
Joke!
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena? (Einstein came up with that definition apparently)
a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
I think both of those apply to the classical belief that "god made the world and causes miracles and that's where weather and stuff come from" :-)
as well as to scientific theories like black holes and things "maybe there's a big invisible hole in that place with no stars, and thats where all those x-rays are coming from)