Is There A God?

[Buckwheat 0]

There is a God We can not hope to fully understand This lack of understanding results in many interpretations that are then manipulated for earthly reasons.

Do what?

[Don Giovanni 0]

suppose i'll repeat what i've said before in another thread: i don't give a shit, honestly.if there is a god, and he wants me to be a person other than what i think a good person is and should do, he/she/it can smd.if there is a god, and we agree on what it is to be a good person, then sweet, cya in heaven, bitches.if there isn't a god, i'm doing my best to be a good person, and that is all that matters.if god should want me to do otherwise, he/she/it's welcome to come tell me, and if he/she/it's convincing enough (and i don't only buy into logical arguments, fwiw), i'll go for it--i'm not THAT stubborn.

this is a good way to put it

[crowTrobot 2]

There is nature We can not hope to fully understand This lack of understanding results in many interpretations that are then manipulated for earthly reasons.

[SGFULTON83 0]

I know there is a poker God because he/she mocks me every single day.

[Balloon guy 158]

suppose i'll repeat what i've said before in another thread: i don't give a shit, honestly.if there is a god, and he wants me to be a person other than what i think a good person is and should do, he/she/it can smd.if there is a god, and we agree on what it is to be a good person, then sweet, cya in heaven, bitches.if there isn't a god, i'm doing my best to be a good person, and that is all that matters.if god should want me to do otherwise, he/she/it's welcome to come tell me, and if he/she/it's convincing enough (and i don't only buy into logical arguments, fwiw), i'll go for it--i'm not THAT stubborn.

Hope you don't mature in any of your opinions on what 'good' is.Would really suck to find out you yourself would condemn yourself to hell when you realize that what you think today may not be what you think tomorrow.Of course it goes hand in hand with the belief that some people have that they currently have enough information of all the universe to make a blanket statement about it's existance and what drives it.Funny how it seems to always be younger people who are so sure about these things.Good luck with explaining to God why you decided you would get to set the crieria for what is and what isn't good based on your comparatively equal intelligance and moral authority to Him. For some insane reason I don't see this going as smoothly as you think it will.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Good luck with explaining to God why you decided you would get to set the crieria for what is and what isn't good based on your comparatively equal intelligance and moral authority to Him. For some insane reason I don't see this going as smoothly as you think it will.

Of course, if there is a god it's waaaay more likely that it's not the Christian god (DUCY?)So good luck explaining to Her how after being given a brain and a moral compass you chose to put them both on hold and decide that the laughable moral code found in the Bible could even come close to being described as 'good enough'.For some sane reason I think your screwed

[crowTrobot 2]

Of course it goes hand in hand with the belief that some people have that they currently have enough information of all the universe to make a blanket statement about it's existance and what drives it.

you're the one doing that. duh.

[Balloon guy 158]

Of course, if there is a god it's waaaay more likely that it's not the Christian god (DUCY?)So good luck explaining to Her how after being given a brain and a moral compass you chose to put them both on hold and decide that the laughable moral code found in the Bible could even come close to being described as 'good enough'.For some sane reason I think your screwed

Actually I don'tI use the Bible, which claims to have been the Word of God to explain what is expected from us.Using simple logic it would make sense the Creator of the world would in fact want to explain things, and do it a simple form that allows for easy understanding.Since you guys are baseing your decision to reject it on the collective knowledge of mankinds limited perspective, I find that:I am rubber, you are glueWhat you say bounces off of me and sticks on you.

[Balloon guy 158]

you're the one doing that. duh.

See above, esp. the glue part

[KramitDaToad 0]

Using simple logic it would make sense the Creator of the world would in fact want to explain things, and do it a simple form that allows for easy understanding.

One day we might have to explain to you what logic actually is. Simlar to Evolution, your understanding of it compared to it's actuallity are poles apart.So lets run with your baseless assumption... It would therefore make sense that said explanation would fit with reality. Kinda sucks that it doesn't. At least we can cross Christianity off the list of viable options then.

[crowTrobot 2]

I use the Bible, which claims to have been the Word of God to explain what is expected from us.

so does the koran. so would the book of the FSM (if i bothered to write one).

Using simple logic it would make sense the Creator of the world would in fact want to explain things

using simple logic it makes sense, yes, after you make 3 huge unfounded egocentric assumptions - that the universe was created, that the creating force if it exists is something that can be personified in a way we can relate to, and that the creator is the slightest bit interested in us

and do it a simple form that allows for easy understanding.

the bible is a simple form that allows for easy understanding? that explains why everybody agrees onhow it should be interpreted

Since you guys are baseing your decision to reject it on the collective knowledge of mankinds limited perspective, I find that:I am rubber, you are glueWhat you say bounces off of me and sticks on you.

feeling lazy?

[Balloon guy 158]

the bible is a simple form that allows for easy understanding? that explains why everybody agrees onhow it should be interpreted feeling lazy?

Speaking of lazy,The Bible has very few interpretations that disagree with each other.In fact I think the New World Translation is one of only two that denies that John clearly says 'the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us', after saying 'the Word was with God, the Word was God'. Which is probably the single most difficult verse in the Bible for people that want to pretend there are many doctrines.Lazy way to try to pretend that a translation change means a doctrinal change since it doesn't.Give me any translation, I'll show you the path to salvation declared by the Creator.You could probably give me most transliterations as well, but I think the numbers go higher than the ~1200 translations of the Bible.And way to try to distract me from my counter to checky trying to make the " I can explain to God why I think what I think and be successfull" line of thought that is really the only thing I was talking about, but I can see why using the same bad debate skills you guys use to limit God, discount the Bible, and pretend there are 'many translations' that cancel each other out.Hey next you can misquote the Bible and then try to use that as a reason why you can judge God and declare Him unfit for worship.Like I said to Checky, good luck with that, it is not going to go quite the way you think it is going too.Or is it : "...is going to"?I always get those two confused.

[Randy Reed 0]

Speaking of lazy,The Bible has very few interpretations that disagree with each other.In fact I think the New World Translation is one of only two that denies that John clearly says 'the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us', after saying 'the Word was with God, the Word was God'. Which is probably the single most difficult verse in the Bible for people that want to pretend there are many doctrines.Lazy way to try to pretend that a translation change means a doctrinal change since it doesn't.Give me any translation, I'll show you the path to salvation declared by the Creator.You could probably give me most transliterations as well, but I think the numbers go higher than the ~1200 translations of the Bible.And way to try to distract me from my counter to checky trying to make the " I can explain to God why I think what I think and be successfull" line of thought that is really the only thing I was talking about, but I can see why using the same bad debate skills you guys use to limit God, discount the Bible, and pretend there are 'many translations' that cancel each other out.Hey next you can misquote the Bible and then try to use that as a reason why you can judge God and declare Him unfit for worship.Like I said to Checky, good luck with that, it is not going to go quite the way you think it is going too.Or is it : "...is going to"?I always get those two confused.

"Merda taurorum animas conturbit" (Bullshit baffles brains)

[crowTrobot 2]

Speaking of lazy,The Bible has very few interpretations that disagree with each other.

christians agree that jesus was god, but beyond that there's disagreement on almost everything relevant to salvation (that's so obvious i shouldn't have to say it).

Give me any translation, I'll show you the path to salvation declared by the Creator.

you mean you'll show me your interpretation of the path to salvation.

And way to try to distract me from my counter to checky trying to make the " I can explain to God why I think what I think and be successfull"

he wasn't saying that lol. and your counter is just boring old pascal's wager in disguise.

and pretend there are 'many translations' that cancel each other out.

i didn't say that. i said the bible obviously isn't an easy to understand simple form.

Like I said to Checky, good luck with that, it is not going to go quite the way you think it is going too.

ok, pascaloon guy.

[checkymcfold 0]

Hope you don't mature in any of your opinions on what 'good' is.

i hope i do. my understanding of what "good" is has changed in lots of ways since i've been alive, and my transcendent or whatever idea of the good is quite malleable.

Would really suck to find out you yourself would condemn yourself to hell when you realize that what you think today may not be what you think tomorrow.

of course, it would also suck to find out that i'm condemning myself to hell by believing in the wrong god

Of course it goes hand in hand with the belief that some people have that they currently have enough information of all the universe to make a blanket statement about it's existance and what drives it.

i don't believe in universal statements--moral, metaphysical, or otherwise. that's why i'm a liberal. duh.

Funny how it seems to always be younger people who are so sure about these things.Good luck with explaining to God why you decided you would get to set the crieria for what is and what isn't good based on your comparatively equal intelligance and moral authority to Him. For some insane reason I don't see this going as smoothly as you think it will.

you do realize that this sort of statement is profoundly ironic, right? it's dogmatism that assumes knowledge of the unknown, not the sort of humanistic relativism that i hold to.

[speedz99 145]

BG, can you explain how you picture a conversation with god going for an atheist that led a good life? I'm finding it pretty amusing* to imagine how you might think it would go.*aside from the amusement at the idea of there being a god that could and would talk to us

[CindyLou 11]

BG, can you explain how you picture a conversation with god going for an atheist that led a good life? I'm finding it pretty amusing* to imagine how you might think it would go.*aside from the amusement at the idea of there being a god that could and would talk to us

Atheist: Whoa, so there really is a God?God: Yeah, I know, right?Atheist: So, was like all that stuff in the Bible true?God: Oh hell no.Atheist: Ok, because a lot of that didn’t make sense and seemed to contradict science and everything we know.God: I like to play with the laws of nature sometimes, throws people off their game.Atheist: That’s kind of harsh playing with people’s eternal souls.God: Yeah, but what’re you gonna do?Atheist: Well I lived a good life I think. I was kind and respectful of others. Isn’t that good enough to get into heaven?God: Oh hell no.

[Suited_Up 2]

DINOSAURS!/forum

[colonel Feathers 5]

Atheist: Whoa, so there really is a God?God: Yeah, I know, right?Atheist: So, was like all that stuff in the Bible true?God: Oh hell no.Atheist: Ok, because a lot of that didn’t make sense and seemed to contradict science and everything we know.God: I like to play with the laws of nature sometimes, throws people off their game.Atheist: That’s kind of harsh playing with people’s eternal souls.God: Yeah, but what’re you gonna do?Atheist: Well I lived a good life I think. I was kind and respectful of others. Isn’t that good enough to get into heaven?God: Oh hell no.

Arent you the one who posted here a while back asking if you were old enuf to have sex with your brother?If not, my sincerest apologies.

[crowTrobot 2]

DINOSAURS!/forum

[speedz99 145]

Atheist: Well I lived a good life I think. I was kind and respectful of others. Isn’t that good enough to get into heaven?God: Oh hell no.

Nice.

[SuitedAces21 2,723]

St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.

[checkymcfold 0]

St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.

the problem with these sorts of arguments--and descartes made a similar one--is that they have to conflate conception (and not in the doin' it sense, obv) with existence in some manner or another in order to work. for descartes, this was including existence in his understanding of perfection without justification; for anselm, it's a little less easy to pinpoint, but it lies in the claim that in order for a greatest being not to exist, a greater being must exist. both of these claims are logically fuzzy at best.

[crowTrobot 2]

St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.

how ontological of him

[SuitedAces21 2,723]

the problem with these sorts of arguments--and descartes made a similar one--is that they have to conflate conception (and not in the doin' it sense, obv) with existence in some manner or another in order to work. for descartes, this was including existence in his understanding of perfection without justification; for anselm, it's a little less easy to pinpoint, but it lies in the claim that in order for a greatest being not to exist, a greater being must exist. both of these claims are logically fuzzy at best.

I dont like the argument. But we went over it in class and no one shared my objections, so I thought I'd see what FCP thought of it.