Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 5, 2024, 5:57 am
Thread Rating:
|
Q about arguments for God's existence.
|
 (June 20, 2014 at 9:26 am)vodkafan Wrote: options: There's another option: All religions that recognize God hold that truth and so share in that truth. Jesus is God incarnate and is the full truth and the way to salvation. Those who follow Christ share in the full truth. Although it's true that we tend to accept what we are taught when we are young, we often reject that as we get older and make our decisions on our own. Most Muslims have never heard Christian teachings and wouldn't be able to make a decision in that regard and vice versa. Churches around the world, though, have many people who were raised in different faiths. 
Lemonvariable72
Copenhagen School  Religious Views: Its all bullshit to keep you handing money to the usher. (June 8, 2014 at 1:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Sye Bruggencate is a tool. That's my presupposition, by the way, not an insult. It's also an insult. To say he is a tool implies he has some use. I think you are mistaken.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.  (June 20, 2014 at 4:34 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: I'm not buying the Big Bang Theory because it's silly. The quantum foam theory is most likely closer to the truth. That's because we are almost certain that once hydrogen forms it clumps together into giant balls and goes nuclear to create stars. And then the stars cook up the heavier elements. That process wouldn't have happened under the Big Bang. You do realize that hydrogen (or any other atomic matter) didn't exist for nearly 400,000 years after inflation began, yes?  RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2014 at 12:44 pm by Whateverist.)
(June 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Lek Wrote:(June 20, 2014 at 9:26 am)vodkafan Wrote: options: Doesn't your other option generalize as "all religions have the potential to be as true for those who have not yet discovered them". Not a very important point imo. I personally will have to go with choice #1, "all religions are equally true". Looked at from the point of view of anthropology, they all serve a similar purpose. For those who hold a religion as true, the way they filter reality will be imbued with it to some degree. Some fear that such beliefs are contaminants that can only defile our grasp of reality. But I think they are more like incense. Some people just like the way reality smells better when they are 'lit' by religion. (June 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm)whateverist Wrote: Doesn't your other option generalize as "all religions have the potential to be as true for those who have not yet discovered them". Not a very important point imo. Yes. According to Romans Chap 1, creation is the evidence for God, so that no one has an excuse not to believe in God. I assume that those who have not been exposed to any particular faith are only held accountable for what truth they have been exposed to. If they are given more and they refuse it, then they are rejecting God. RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 21, 2014 at 1:11 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2014 at 1:11 pm by Whateverist.)
Well, I don't reject your God above all others. He is just one of many whose existence I hold as silly stuff that is held as sacred by some people. It is the entire genre that I reject. I don't already believe in any of them and see no reason to begin doing so now.
 RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 21, 2014 at 1:12 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2014 at 1:18 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
Lek, you are a complete moron. "According to this book, no one has an excuse for not believing". Fuck off.
(June 21, 2014 at 2:52 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:(June 20, 2014 at 7:08 am)Irrational Wrote: Skepticism is fine, but in this case, most of the really smart people out there who know what they're talking about agree with the Big Bang, and your reason for rejecting it (merely because it's silly) is not a good reason at all. Go on then. So far, you haven't said anything bright on the topic so far. You've just come off sounding like a conspiracy theory nut. "I don't understand it because it's complicated, therefore it's wrong".
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin  (June 21, 2014 at 1:06 pm)Lek Wrote:(June 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm)whateverist Wrote: Doesn't your other option generalize as "all religions have the potential to be as true for those who have not yet discovered them". Not a very important point imo. According to Romans Chap 1. Well. Who the fuck cares what a Jewish Pharisee thought about the metaphysics of cosmology in 60 A.D. We know better. You should know better. I look at the facts we know NOW and see evidence against your God. So there goes that. (June 21, 2014 at 1:12 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Lek, you are a complete moron. "According to this book, no one has an excuse for not believing". Fuck off. That's what I just said above. God has revealed himself in creation, so no one has an excuse not to believe in him. From that point is where the differences of revelation come in. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)
