I KNOW God Exists!!!!

[doombug]

You call it courage, I call it masochism...I'd certainly hear more intelligent things from the back end of my Pomeranian than you, but, here goes.

Masochism? well bless you heart.

Listening to the rear end of a Pomeranian are you? That explains why most of what you post strongly resembles dog shit.

I agree with the video, and said so. Fin. It's a lovely display of logic and openness; rejecting absolutist arguments and closed beliefs. It is fair, as well; addressing not only religious but non-religious illogical statements. I'd only ask it be directed at all religions, because it's Western bias shows, but we're all sucked into the cult of Christianity in the US.

This statement only shows closed mindedness which explains why you only accept views that are identical to your own.

I suggest you go back and look through some of the old threads in this section. A lot was said and hashed over. You're late to the party, so to speak. I don't always agree with Alice in Chains, for instance, but his threads have brought up new topics and have been pretty useful. Your song and dance is stale. Sorry, it's just boring.

This "song and dance" of yours is really stale. Why do you feel the need to constantly explain why you can't be bothered by such boring topics?

I struggle to think you're worth talking to, is all. I have you on ignore, which is why I don't respond to you often. I gave you a shot when you first started posting, but you proved useless. Say something interesting, I dare you.

If you have me on ignore then why do you respond at all? Stop your belly aching.

I don't think any of us on this forum agree 100% about religion, so there is no solid group think going on. We all differ to some degree. People with bad arguments get hopped on. It seems the dominant opinion is one of logic, and I won't apologize for that.

Nah, I disagree. The "group think" is definitely Anti-Christian bible bashing.

Never smoked anything in my life; brain is healthy and active.

You might want to get a second opinion on that.

 

[Panacea]

Masochism? well bless you heart.

Listening to the rear end of a Pomeranian are you? That explains why most of what you post strongly resembles dog shit.



This statement only shows closed mindedness which explains why you only accept views that are identical to your own.



This "song and dance" of yours is really stale. Why do you feel the need to constantly explain why you can't be bothered by such boring topics?



If you have me on ignore then why do you respond at all? Stop your belly aching.



Nah, I disagree. The "group think" is definitely Anti-Christian bible bashing.



You might want to get a second opinion on that.

You're even pathetic at insulting people. Are you not good at anything?

 

[doombug]

You're even pathetic at insulting people. Are you not good at anything?

Apparently I'm great at getting you to post! :clap

Now if you will post things other than childish nonsense that would be great. :thumbup

 

[Tim]

Apparently I'm great at getting you to post! :clap

Now if you will post things other than childish nonsense that would be great. :thumbup

How about you answer my questions...

 

[doombug]

Either you don't understand science or your reading comprehension is severely lacking.
Science does NOT say that the universe "Had to start at some point"

Then what does the Big Bang Theory say? Theories are a part of science, like it or not. Big Bang indicates a start, hence the name: BIG BANG. It is based on observational evidence that is accepted by many scientists.

Science does NOT indicate that there are more dimensions in existence than what we can detect as humans.

Oh really, ever heard of String Theory or M-Theory?

What science does is put forth theories that are most likely, they are not facts. If you ask a scientist if the universe had a beginning and he will never say yes or no, he will indicate that the facts point to a beginning but no one knows.

I agree with you. Where have I said any of these things are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Theories indicate possibilities and possibilities can rule out certain ideas like "who created God".

This is the difference between science and religion. Scientist will always accept new theories if new facts are brought to light. Where as religion works off a dead book. There will NEVER be any new facts about god, only what's written in the bible.

Science and religion are two different things, I agree. But it is possible for the two to agree with each other on some things even if it is by coincedence.

I even re-posted your quotes. Read them again and show me where it says that science knows that the universe had a beginning.

Once again, re-read my post and show me where I stated science knows for a fact the universe had a beginning. I said "according to science" which includes scientific theory. I posted the quotes to back up what some professors have said about the BB Theory and to show that it is generally accepted. Scientists usually base what they believe on observational evidence. It stands to reason there is enough of this evidence to make the BB theory acceptable.

Now, with that being said my point is this: How can the premise of "who created God" be valid if the POSSIBILITY exists outside of our existence. As far as we know cause and effect as well as the concept of time only exists in our reality. Is God eternal therefore no need for creating? No one knows for sure but the possibilty is there which makes the premise of "who created God" a fallacy.

 

[doombug]

How about you answer my questions...

You seem sincere Tim so I wanted to take the time to answer your questions as complete as I could. I had to take care of a little light work first, sorry about that.

BTW, my answer to your questions is on the previous page.

 

[BornReady]

Now, with that being said my point is this: How can the premise of "who created God" be valid if the POSSIBILITY exists outside of our existence. As far as we know cause and effect as well as the concept of time only exists in our reality. Is God eternal therefore no need for creating? No one knows for sure but the possibilty is there which makes the premise of "who created God" a fallacy.

I don't see the point of imagining what things might exist outside time and space. Human minds don't have the ability to even comprehend such a thing much less talk intelligently about it.

I think it's interesting the question is phrased as "who" created God. There seems to be an underlying assumption that everything had to start with an intelligent being. Yet in nature we find that complexity arises from something less complex. Could it be that God evolved?

 

[doombug]

I don't see the point of imagining what things might exist outside time and space. Human minds don't have the ability to even comprehend such a thing much less talk intelligently about it.

This is the kind of thing scientists study and discuss though. I think it is interesting.

I think it's interesting the question is phrased as "who" created God. There seems to be an underlying assumption that everything had to start with an intelligent being. Yet in nature we find that complexity arises from something less complex. Could it be that God evolved?

You could also make the assumption that God had a start or a need to be created. I don't think it matters much if "who" is used if the premise is a fallacy to begin with.

It seems to me that Atheists and Agnostics would be better off if they said "I don't believe in God, end of story." I don't understand the need to build up some kind of philosophy to support what they decide to think. I'm sure many read things like "who created God" and believe it without examination. But when it is examined it really looks silly and makes non-believers come across as silly also.

 

[Minor Axis]

Ahhhh but that's intellectual laziness! One should ramble about and assert ramshackle assumptions as truths instead, that's the intellectual thing to do!

Hmm, whom might you be thinking of?

And I see no one really has any answers.

This might be the first intelligent statement you've made in religious discussions in this forum.

When a topic gets to a certain point many here throw up thier hands unless there is bible bashing involved. Many here seem to claim they are "agnostics" but aren't really open minded enough to discuss possibilities.

Most of the discussion you've been defending the Bible or at least countering those who question the Bible. Questioning the Bible is not Bible bashing per see.

Which Agnostics are you referring to? I am an Agnostic who is willing to discuss "possibilities". When it comes to the Bible I can always say it's "possible" but that is it. When I examine what the Bible says, logically it does not add up and my "faith" is not strong enough just to blindly believe. My definition of blind is belief without questions. Do you by chance have any "possibilities" in mind not based on the Bible?

That leads me to believe the ones who claim to be "agnostics" are really just angry atheists and Christian haters who don't believe in anything and can't back up what they say.

Stupid comment. Go look up the definition of agnostic vs atheist. Your Christian hater comment is very typical of theists facing those who question their faith. You are consistently defending Christianity as "truth" or having issues with those who don't view Christianity as truth. Just admit you are a hopeless* non-questioning Christian.

*Hopeless in that you've all ready been assimilated and not really open to other possibilities. And yes there are lots of possibilities that don't include a Christian God.

 

[Panacea]

I don't see the point of imagining what things might exist outside time and space. Human minds don't have the ability to even comprehend such a thing much less talk intelligently about it.

I think it's interesting the question is phrased as "who" created God. There seems to be an underlying assumption that everything had to start with an intelligent being. Yet in nature we find that complexity arises from something less complex. Could it be that God evolved?

It's a good point. I think the 'who' is just evidence of social conditioning to, at least unconsciously, assume two things: a) everything has to be created by something that intended to create it and b) it's a human-like being, for the most part. Those have been the assumptions for a mind-numbingly long time...so much so, I think that's why so many sort of accept them as fact. Religion really is so deeply rooted in almost every culture, even if one is skeptical or open to other possibilities, it's hard to push beyond those assumptions because it's likely the way the individual was raised. It's a common frame of reference.

I think it's incredibly fascinating to imagine what society may eventually come up with...as people slowly begin to drift from the Abrahamic religions with a focus on spirituality, what types of hypotheses will begin to crop up? This all assumes there isn't a shift back to fundamentalism in the Abrahamic religions, and I suppose it would take a great deal of time for a different hypothesis to come into our collective conscious.

 

[Niamh]

This is the kind of thing scientists study and discuss though. I think it is interesting.



You could also make the assumption that God had a start or a need to be created. I don't think it matters much if "who" is used if the premise is a fallacy to begin with.

It seems to me that Atheists and Agnostics would be better off if they said "I don't believe in God, end of story." I don't understand the need to build up some kind of philosophy to support what they decide to think. I'm sure many read things like "who created God" and believe it without examination. But when it is examined it really looks silly and makes non-believers come across as silly also.

Why? The point is no body knows whether there is a God or not. I think most agnostics just know their limitations, saying there definitely is or definitely isn't a God is the same thing, claiming something as a definite when no body really has a clue.

 

[doombug]

Why? The point is no body knows whether there is a God or not. I think most agnostics just know their limitations, saying there definitely is or definitely isn't a God is the same thing, claiming something as a definite when no body really has a clue.

Exactly, so why would someone who doesn't believe in God ask whether God was created? Why attempt to build some philosophy based on questioning something they don't believe in the first place? If someone doesn't believe why isn't that enough?

Why only question Christianity? It seems to me that is all that is done here.

 

[doombug]

Hmm, whom might you be thinking of?

If this person had the courage to address people directly there would be no doubt who they are talking about.

Most of the discussion you've been defending the Bible or at least countering those who question the Bible. Questioning the Bible is not Bible bashing per see.

What you see as my questioning is not defending. I am questioning what you believe and you seem to not like it.

Then question the bible and stop bashing.

Which Agnostics are you referring to? I am an Agnostic who is willing to discuss "possibilities". When it comes to the Bible I can always say it's "possible" but that is it. When I examine what the Bible says, logically it does not add up and my "faith" is not strong enough just to blindly believe. My definition of blind is belief without questions. Do you by chance have any "possibilities" in mind not based on the Bible?

Of course, I have stated possibilities based on what science says but I guess you missed it.

Stupid comment. Go look up the definition of agnostic vs atheist. Your Christian hater comment is very typical of theists facing those who question their faith.

I presented my comment as my opinion. Do I not have a right to my opinion?

You are consistently defending Christianity as "truth" or having issues with those who don't view Christianity as truth. Just admit you are a hopeless* non-questioning Christian.

*Hopeless in that you've all ready been assimilated and not really open to other possibilities. And yes there are lots of possibilities that don't include a Christian God.

I am not defending Christianity as truth I am only questioning what others here believe. You want to paint me as a Christian so that your circular logic makes sense. You see EVERY belief system in flawed even a system based on non-belief. When questioned these flaws are revealed. Why are you so afraid to see flaws in what you believe?

 

[BornReady]

Many here seem to claim they are "agnostics" but aren't really open minded enough to discuss possibilities. That leads me to believe the ones who claim to be "agnostics" are really just angry atheists and Christian haters who don't believe in anything and can't back up what they say.

You imply atheists are close minded. That is false. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe any gods exist. Most atheists are willing to consider any evidence a theist might present for their particular god. They just don't find the evidence convincing. That doesn't make them close minded. It just makes them skeptical.

Close minded people say I know God exists or I know no gods exist. Open minded people say I believe God exists or I don't believe any gods exist. Agnostics are so open minded they don't even know what they believe.

 

[Panacea]

You imply atheists are close minded. That is false. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe any gods exist. Most atheists are willing to consider any evidence a theist might present for their particular god. They just don't find the evidence convincing. That doesn't make them close minded. It just makes them skeptical.

Close minded people say I know God exists or I know no gods exist. Open minded people say I believe God exists or I don't believe any gods exist. Agnostics are so open minded they don't even know what they believe.

As usual, you say it best.
Everyone uses judgment when determining what is true and false, and in the process some possibilities are eliminated (at least shelved).

The possibilities for life's origins and meaning are endless, why stop at the bible god? I wish there were MORE perspectives offered here...there are so many religions, so many gods, so much more beyond the limited scope of just christianity. I'd love to hear what others think. I really believe the bible is a dry well. Everything that can be taken from the bible has been- folk wisdom, humorous useless quotes, contradictions, and an overall lack of real information regarding why life exists and what its for.

For me, I like to look at anthropology and sociology when thinking of gods...there is no unanimous decision, so why do humans look for god? Why has god taken the shape it has? There is so much to think about and mull over, but it will always be a personal thing. No forum squabble is going to settle the origin and meaning of life. It just isn't.

 

[doombug]

You imply atheists are close minded. That is false. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe any gods exist. Most atheists are willing to consider any evidence a theist might present for their particular god. They just don't find the evidence convincing. That doesn't make them close minded. It just makes them skeptical.

I disagree. Although I don't consider this forum to be a good representation of Atheists I don't see too many here that are open to even answering questions let alone considering evidence contrary to what they believe. The main interest seems to be Christian bashing to make themselves feel better about their non-belief.

Close minded people say I know God exists or I know no gods exist. Open minded people say I believe God exists or I don't believe any gods exist. Agnostics are so open minded they don't even know what they believe.

I see many Militant Agnostics here who believe this: I don't know anything and neither do you.

If Agnostics were so open minded in considering evidence contrary to their beliefs there would be more discussion on this forum and less nonsense and drama.
Many are here just to bash Christians and there is one who pretends to be so above it all they cannot be bothered with discussing anything. So much for your theory about open mindedness.

 

[Johnfromokc]

So much for your theory about open mindedness.

Sorry Doomy, but you are the epitome of closed mindedness given your posts in your short time here at OTz.

Militant Agnostics? LOL...now that was funny. You do provide a level of amusement Doomster.

 

[Panacea]

Sorry Doomy, but you are the epitome of closed mindedness given your posts in your short time here at OTz.

Militant Agnostics? LOL...now that was funny. You do provide a level of amusement Doomster.

No shit. States it doesn't buy neutral, logical arguments, but is open minded...k

 

[Tim]

Sorry Doomy, but you are the epitome of closed mindedness given your posts in your short time here at OTz.

Militant Agnostics? LOL...now that was funny. You do provide a level of amusement Doomster.

I honestly don't think he knows the meaning of half the words you used in your post. I mean he just doesn't grasp the concepts presented here...

 

[Minor Axis]

What you see as my questioning is not defending. I am questioning what you believe and you seem to not like it.

What do you think I believe? What would you like to question? I am non-commital in my spiritual leanings (not approaching the level of belief) and I've heard absolutely no questions from you regarding my beliefs. The majority of your efforts have been to counter the Bible critiques voiced in this and other thread with your defense of the Bible. To simplify things for you, voicing a critique is different than voicing a belief... For someone who is not defending the Bible, you are spending most of your efforts in defense of Bible teachings.

And your assumption is that I don't like your questions. What makes you think that? Do you actually think everyone who questions you is angry?