PDA

View Full Version : Do You Believe In God?



Northern Paladin
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 09:55 AM
Do You Believe in God?

Yes I do. I think it's the only logical conclusion to the questions of how did we get here and why are we here?

I grew up in Sunday school. But I had many times in my life where I've doubted the existence of God. At least a benevolent one.

Jäger
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 10:02 AM
I think it's the only logical conclusion...
"If we don't know how it was done, then it must have been done by god"- logic?

Anyway, somehow I believe in something higher, you may call it god, although I really doubt it has to be one singel "god", it maybe as well many.
It is not that I am really a believer, yet I sometimes think it might be possible, and I don't want to make these beings angry :D :P

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 10:23 AM
"If we don't know how it was done, then it must have been done by god"- logic?

Anyway, somehow I believe in something higher, you may call it god, although I really doubt it has to be one singel "god", it maybe as well many.
It is not that I am really a believer, yet I sometimes think it might be possible, and I don't want to make these beings angry :D :P

You must be living in constant fear.:D

Aeternitas
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Personally, not really, but I don't deny the possibility 100 %. We aren't sure who/what created us, and it's fair enough to develop theories, but then why limit the answer to "God"?

"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing." - Robert Ingersoll

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 10:30 AM
To me God exists simply because such a being can be conceptualized. If God doesn't exist where do we get this concept from?

Arguements of the Existence of God from Thomas Aquinas. For me I find these agruements rather water proof.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

Aeternitas
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 11:50 AM
Other things can be conceptualized too - or other gods. But while I respect Christianity and find there are positive things about it, I am not irrefutably convinced of the existence of God. Moreover, I am not convinced that this God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Let’s start with a quick experiment. You can grab three coins and actually do the experiment, or just do a thought experiment.

Drop one coin and watch it fall. Do this again. Hold out the third coin.

If you were to do this again, what do you think would happen? If you could get ten good Christians to pray that this next coin wouldn’t fall, would it still fall? How about one thousand faithful Muslims? How about one billion people of any faith? I think that it would still fall. Drop the third coin.

Our understanding of the world around us, and our abilities to predict what will happen are based on naturalism — the basis of science. Naturalism is how all people live their lives most of the time.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.godl essgeeks.com%2FWhyAtheism.htm)

A question many people ask is, if God exists, and if he really loves people, then why does he allow tragedies to happen? There are many theories regarding this, and Christians aren't the only ones who have answers. Wouldn't the theory that God created everything and then withdrew from the scene make more sense explaining that? Or perhaps dualist beliefs? Maybe to some they would.
Anyway, I am not interested in going on "crusades" to convince everyone that there is no God, as I believe in the freedom to believe, so this was rather an explaination of my personal beliefs.

Thruthheim
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 12:06 PM
No.

Origins to our creation are much more complex than simply crediting some mythological being with our existence.

Georgia
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 12:29 PM
But I had many times in my life where I've doubted the existence of God.

I grew up in a home full of traditional values such as love for family (a marriage relationship between one man and one woman), home and country.
Neither one of my parents were Christians during my childhood. Yet, so much of the teaching I received from my parents were grounded in traditional Christianity. Of course this should not be surprising, since historians state, and rightfully so, that in 1914 Germany was the most Christian nation in Europe.

I remember my Papa saying to me that he lost ALL of his believe in God when he was a Flack-Schütze as a 15-year old in Germany. Seeing civilians, especially children, die around him, he could not understand how a loving God would allow this. So I can well understand why you said what you did.


To answer the question: Yes, I believe in God, and by His sovereign grace I am a Christian.


Georgia

Karasig
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 01:07 PM
I believe in the fate and the timeless circulation of the being.

Siegfried
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 01:16 PM
"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature."
~Frank Lloyd Wright

;)

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 01:20 PM
"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature."
~Frank Lloyd Wright

;)
Likewise ;)

I believe in the infinite wisdom of Nature as a whole, of which we are parts and not seperate entities.

D'Vadder
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 01:39 PM
I only believe in myself! What/who is god? Which god? Yahweh, Allah,...? The only thing what "created" us is time and nature-No god!

Jack
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 01:40 PM
In nomeni patri et fili et spiritus sancti, of course I believe in God. Sic semper infidelis ;)

Thumelicus
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 01:45 PM
I would like to believe in god(s). Unfortunately, in everyday life, I see no apparent manifestation of the divine. ZERO.

Jack
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 03:29 PM
I pity you. One day you might. Try reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, some Plato, the Bible, St. Augustine's City of God and if you can be bothered digging your head into it, perhaps Summa Theologica by Aquinas. I plan on buying Summa Theologica tomorrow.

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 04:35 PM
There are two words in the question which bother me: "believe" and "God". (Doesn't leave much, does it ?) I distrust belief. Being an agnostic, I admit it when I do not know whether something is true or not. As I see it, belief is asserting the truth of a statement that I do not know and cannot know to be true, just because I want it to be true. I try not to "believe" anything. I am willing to accept the truth of an unproved proposition as a a working hypothesis to be tested. If it can't be tested, then I refuse to accept its truth. I admit my ignorance. That is what agnosticism is all about. I think that it it a vastly more honest intellectual position than faith......Philosophical speculation in the areas of ontology and cosmology has led me to consider seriously the concept of intelligent design by a supreme being as opposed to random chance as an explanation of the remarkable coincidences which must otherwise be postulated and accepted to account for the fundamental concepts of physics......There are three fundamental physical constants: the gravitational constant which relates gravitational force to mass and distance; Planck's constant which relates the energy and wavelength or frequency of a quantum of electromagnetic energy; and the fine structure constant which expresses the probability that an electron will capture a quantum of electromagnetic energy.....Pretty abstruse stuff, you may say. HOWEVER, unless each of these constants has EXACTLY (out to the sixth decimal place, anyhow) the value which it does have, thic universe could not exist. The range of possible values of EACH of these constants is infinite. It seems remarkable to me that even one of them has just the value required for this universe to exist. That all three of them should boggles my imagination. Did this happen by accident? I think that that explanation stretches coindicence to the breaking point. But if not accident, what ? It seems to me to be hard to escape the notion that this requires the intervention of an intelligent entity......I call this, admittedly hypothetical, entity the Supreme Being . Such a being is inconceivable and incomprehensible to our intellects. Any attempt to conceive of it leads merely to anthropomorphizing it. Whatever this being may be, there is no reason to envision it as , in any wise, resembling a human being. One can speculate that it must have consciousness and will in order to do what I have suggested that it did: to set the values of the fundamental physical constants and establish the laws of physics (whether they be prescriptive or descriptive) required for this universe to exist......I do NOT see that the existence of such an entity requires that it be concerned in any way with the lives and actions of individual human beings, or that it be amenable to persuasion by human beings. However much back-bending, self-abasing grovelling a man may do, there is no reason to accept the idea that his entreaties can influence the inexorable operation of the laws of nature. For this reason, I find the anthropomorphic concept of "God" preposterous and rather disgusting. It depicts the Supreme Being as vain, avid for praise, susceptible to flattery, capricious, and often vindictive. What a mean paltry concept of a sublime entity !

Weg
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 05:45 PM
Not sure... He didn't get in touch with me for years. I'm still waiting...

You've to be mystic to believe in God, I'm not.

Jäger
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 06:12 PM
You must be living in constant fear.:D I am :-O ;) :D, I also prayed to my Xena stand-up before I took my exam, I hoped she would help me, but it wasn't that good :~( damn Xena, (sorry Xena I don't mean it) ((in case she listens ;)))

http://freespace.virgin.net/ken.hannen/xena-back.jpg

I bow down.

Prince Eugen
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 06:40 PM
I believe in god,but i don't believe in religions!

Northern Paladin
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 05:50 AM
Other things can be conceptualized too - or other gods. But while I respect Christianity and find there are positive things about it, I am not irrefutably convinced of the existence of God. Moreover, I am not convinced that this God is omniscient and omnipotent.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.godl essgeeks.com%2FWhyAtheism.htm)

A question many people ask is, if God exists, and if he really loves people, then why does he allow tragedies to happen? There are many theories regarding this, and Christians aren't the only ones who have answers. Wouldn't the theory that God created everything and then withdrew from the scene make more sense explaining that? Or perhaps dualist beliefs? Maybe to some they would.
Anyway, I am not interested in going on "crusades" to convince everyone that there is no God, as I believe in the freedom to believe, so this was rather an explaination of my personal beliefs.

God is not passive in his creation. Because such a God would not be one to answer Prayers or perform Miracles. What the Bible tells us is that God knows every hair on our heads and knows every sparrow in the sky.

God lets tragedies happen because God tests people with them. He wants to see if we worship him only because we receive good things from or we worship him because he is God. Also it is said The Lord giveth and The Lord taketh. We don't know why we just have to trust that God is doing the right thing for us.

Suffering is also the result of the consequences of our own free will. If God created us without free will there would be no suffering but we would also not be capable of noble and selfless acts.


No.

Origins to our creation are much more complex than simply crediting some mythological being with our existence.

They are so complex we can't even conceive what our origins were. Evolution can only explain the mechanism of life. But it does not explain the origins of life.


I grew up in a home full of traditional values such as love for family (a marriage relationship between one man and one woman), home and country.
Neither one of my parents were Christians during my childhood. Yet, so much of the teaching I received from my parents were grounded in traditional Christianity. Of course this should not be surprising, since historians state, and rightfully so, that in 1914 Germany was the most Christian nation in Europe.

I remember my Papa saying to me that he lost ALL of his believe in God when he was a Flack-Schütze as a 15-year old in Germany. Seeing civilians, especially children, die around him, he could not understand how a loving God would allow this. So I can well understand why you said what you did.


To answer the question: Yes, I believe in God, and by His sovereign grace I am a Christian.


Georgia

Thanks for sharing. I believe God is good despite the great evils that has happened in human history and will happen. I have doubted God certain times in my life but than my eyes were opened to the fact God does not promise all we be easy in this life only that if we follow him all will turn for our greater good in the end.



"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature."
~Frank Lloyd Wright

;)

That is Pantheism my friend.:) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newa dvent.org%2Fcathen%2F11447b.htm)

Your just lucky nature didn't will you live in a different period.:D


I believe in the fate and the timeless circulation of the being.

I believe that is called asatru.:P

Theudiskaz
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 05:56 AM
I am not Christian, nor do I adhere to or any other religions. But I do have sense of wonder about the order Nature and of the universe which seems to reflect some sort of conscious guidance. I don't pretend to understand this consciousness, but I think it probably exists. I guess I could refer to this entity as God.

Theudiskaz
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 06:01 AM
To me God exists simply because such a being can be conceptualized. If God doesn't exist where do we get this concept from?
I can conceptualize a lot of things which are impossible.;)

Theudiskaz
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 06:12 AM
I believe in the fate and the timeless circulation of the being.I believe in fate too. I think this a very Germanic characteristic, the belief or a strong belief in fate. I guess my concept of fate is similar to the "Wyrd" of the Anglo-Saxons and that of the Germanic pagans in general. That is, I believe that the course of a man's life is laid out before he is born. That "choice" is an illusion. Everything that we do and everything that is done to us happens for a reason. Every single event happens necessarily. There is no such thing as chance. Existence is just one infinite chain-reaction.

Gaian Meroveus
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 06:22 AM
Comrades,

The fact that anyone in a modern industrial society can genuinely believe in an: invisible, non-communicative, magical anthropomorphic father creator being can only be attributed to acculturalisation. i.e. People believe in God because they have been hearing about God since they left the womb. They are brainwashed.

Our remote ancestors invented Gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon and the events in their daily lives for which they could conceive of no rational explanation.

For a modern, even semi- educated individual to truly believe in these irrational and scientifically insupportable beliefs is beyond me.

In my oppinion, the primary motivating factor for a belief in God and the Hereafter is that people simply cannot accept that we are biologically no different than any other life form on this planet in that we will die and we will cease to exist as sentient, conscious entities.

But of course this is the most contentious issue man has ever faced and will continue to be.
I'd rather be a non-Theist and live and allow others to live, rather than a Theist and oppress and cause the deaths of countless human beings who do not share my phantasies.

Best wishes and pass the collection plate,
_GM.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 06:35 AM
There are two words in the question which bother me: "believe" and "God". (Doesn't leave much, does it ?) I distrust belief. Being an agnostic, I admit it when I do not know whether something is true or not. As I see it, belief is asserting the truth of a statement that I do not know and cannot know to be true, just because I want it to be true. I try not to "believe" anything. I am willing to accept the truth of an unproved proposition as a a working hypothesis to be tested. If it can't be tested, then I refuse to accept its truth. I admit my ignorance. That is what agnosticism is all about. I think that it it a vastly more honest intellectual position than faith......Philosophical speculation in the areas of ontology and cosmology has led me to consider seriously the concept of intelligent design by a supreme being as opposed to random chance as an explanation of the remarkable coincidences which must otherwise be postulated and accepted to account for the fundamental concepts of physics......There are three fundamental physical constants: the gravitational constant which relates gravitational force to mass and distance; Planck's constant which relates the energy and wavelength or frequency of a quantum of electromagnetic energy; and the fine structure constant which expresses the probability that an electron will capture a quantum of electromagnetic energy.....Pretty abstruse stuff, you may say. HOWEVER, unless each of these constants has EXACTLY (out to the sixth decimal place, anyhow) the value which it does have, thic universe could not exist. The range of possible values of EACH of these constants is infinite. It seems remarkable to me that even one of them has just the value required for this universe to exist. That all three of them should boggles my imagination. Did this happen by accident? I think that that explanation stretches coindicence to the breaking point. But if not accident, what ? It seems to me to be hard to escape the notion that this requires the intervention of an intelligent entity......I call this, admittedly hypothetical, entity the Supreme Being . Such a being is inconceivable and incomprehensible to our intellects. Any attempt to conceive of it leads merely to anthropomorphizing it. Whatever this being may be, there is no reason to envision it as , in any wise, resembling a human being. One can speculate that it must have consciousness and will in order to do what I have suggested that it did: to set the values of the fundamental physical constants and establish the laws of physics (whether they be prescriptive or descriptive) required for this universe to exist......I do NOT see that the existence of such an entity requires that it be concerned in any way with the lives and actions of individual human beings, or that it be amenable to persuasion by human beings. However much back-bending, self-abasing grovelling a man may do, there is no reason to accept the idea that his entreaties can influence the inexorable operation of the laws of nature. For this reason, I find the anthropomorphic concept of "God" preposterous and rather disgusting. It depicts the Supreme Being as vain, avid for praise, susceptible to flattery, capricious, and often vindictive. What a mean paltry concept of a sublime entity !

If God created mankind it would seem he would have some interest in it.
You are simply comparing the traits of man to God. Such a comparision does not follow.


I can conceptualize a lot of things which are impossible.;)

That makes it a potentiality. Nothing can be a potentiality if it weren't based on some schema of reality.


Comrades,

The fact that anyone in a modern industrial society can genuinely believe in an: invisible, non-communicative, magical anthropomorphic father creator being can only be attributed to acculturalisation. i.e. People believe in God because they have been hearing about God since they left the womb. They are brainwashed.

Our remote ancestors invented Gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon and the events in their daily lives for which they could conceive of no rational explanation.

For a modern, even semi- educated individual to truly believe in these irrational and scientifically insupportable beliefs is beyond me.

In my oppinion, the primary motivating factor for a belief in God and the Hereafter is that people simply cannot accept that we are biologically no different than any other life form on this planet in that we will die and we will cease to exist as sentient, conscious entities.

But of course this is the most contentious issue man has ever faced and will continue to be.
I'd rather be a non-Theist and live and allow others to live, rather than a Theist and oppress and cause the deaths of countless human beings who do not share my phantasies.

Best wishes and pass the collection plate,
_GM.

Science is just the observation of the operation of nature. It does not explain the origin of nature it is simply an observation.

God is used to explain the origin of nature which Science can not.

Gaian Meroveus
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 06:51 AM
Science is just the observation of the operation of nature. It does not explain the origin of nature it is simply an observation.

God is used to explain the origin of nature which Science can not.



Personally i accept that mankind is- at his present state of evolution - simply psycho-biologically incapable of fully comprehending or intellectualising the mysteries of existance and the origins of the universe.

But i am a humble 'soul'.:halo


Best wishes,
_GM.

Jäger
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 08:18 AM
God is used to explain the origin of nature which Science can not.
But on which basis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Northern Paladin
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 08:25 AM
But on which basis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

The Creator of the Universe would have to be outside the bounds of Time and Space and therefore have no physical body.

Weltfaschist
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 08:26 AM
I do not believe in God. I believe in myself and my Fatherland:)

Jäger
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 09:23 AM
The Creator of the Universe would have to be outside the bounds of Time and Space and therefore have no physical body.
Who says so? Other than you I have proof, see this document
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/FSM_himself.jpg

Or proof to me that this is wrong :)

Gagnraad
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 09:36 AM
I do not worship God, but if he excist? Who knows? I do surely not.
I believe that there's another... Force, if you will, out there. Which is what we call God, Allah, Tor, Odin, Zeus and so forth. This force represent chaos(Good, evil, neutrality etc) and which we humans gave this force names(Odin, Zeus, God , Allah etc). So it might just be that Odinist's and Christians worship the same being? Just under different name's, ofcourse...
I may be wrong, but I doubt anyone can prove me wrong, or right. It's just a theory. :)

Northern Paladin
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 09:38 AM
Who says so? Other than you I have proof, see this document
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/FSM_himself.jpg

Or proof to me that this is wrong :)

If you are obessed with this Spagehitti monster I am afraid I can not convince you otherwise.:)

Look at the percentages 10-10-8 there is no clear majority! And there is even a NS who voted yes!:-O

Jäger
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 09:48 AM
Look at the percentages 10-10-8 there is no clear majority! And there is even a NS who voted yes!:-O
Indeed, but well believing in God is not bad per se.
Just religions and the church are :D

Rhydderch
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 01:27 PM
I do.


"If we don't know how it was done, then it must have been done by god"- logic?A little more to it than this. It's not that God just fills in a gap, it's that a universe forming on its own without a creator is a logical impossibility. The intelligent Aristotle was no Christian, but he could see that only monotheism made logical sense, including as an explanation for the existence of the universe. Of course he lived in a predominantly polytheistic society, but one with quite a lot of atheism around.


A question many people ask is, if God exists, and if he really loves people, then why does he allow tragedies to happen? There are many theories regarding this, and Christians aren't the only ones who have answers. Wouldn't the theory that God created everything and then withdrew from the scene make more sense explaining that?The only "Christians" who have trouble fathoming this are the liberals. The answer to this query is well and truly contained in the Bible, of which they deny the reliability.

Weg
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 01:48 PM
Wouldn't the theory that God created everything and then withdrew from the scene make more sense explaining that?

So he would be on holiday? He could send news time to time still.


Why does God allow all tragedies happen? Which ones? If God does exist, then he created us like he did for ants before us, and cares as much about us than for any other form life he is the creator, ants included. Man must not be superior to a ant to him. So why should he bother if a anthill is crushed or a human civilization wiped out?

Rhydderch
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 01:57 PM
The fact that anyone in a modern industrial society can genuinely believe in an: invisible, non-communicative, magical anthropomorphic father creator being can only be attributed to acculturalisation. i.e. People believe in God because they have been hearing about God since they left the womb. They are brainwashed.The fact that some people, in our scientific age, don't accept the existence of even a "Supreme Intelligent Being" testifies to the amazing capacity man has for denying something he doesn't want to believe ;)

Weg
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 02:03 PM
The fact that some people, in our scientific age, don't accept the existence of even a "Supreme Intelligent Being" testifies to the amazing capacity man has for denying something he doesn't want to believe ;)

Fear unbelievers!

Jäger
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 02:14 PM
A little more to it than this. It's not that God just fills in a gap, it's that a universe forming on its own without a creator is a logical impossibility. The intelligent Aristotle was no Christian, but he could see that only monotheism made logical sense, including as an explanation for the existence of the universe.
Indeed, see my posts above, it must be something like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Rhydderch
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 02:26 PM
Indeed, see my posts above, it must be something like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Well, science effectively proves that an intelligent being is responsible for the existence of the universe. So yes, as far as the scientific evidence on origins is concerned, it does not in itself prove the existence of the Biblical God.

Gaian Meroveus
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 07:25 PM
The fact that some people, in our scientific age, don't accept the existence of even a "Supreme Intelligent Being" testifies to the amazing capacity man has for denying something he doesn't want to believe ;)

...or convincing himself of something he wants to believe?;)



Best wishes,
_GM.

Imnotwearingsocks
Thursday, April 27th, 2006, 11:40 PM
Do You Believe in God?

Yes I do. I think it's the only logical conclusion to the questions of how did we get here and why are we here?

I grew up in Sunday school. But I had many times in my life where I've doubted the existence of God. At least a benevolent one.

I believe in a God. I was grew up in Sunday school, memorized the golden rule yada yada.:) But I just hate it when Chauvinist pigs use it as a justification for the oppression of the superior sex.

Northern Paladin
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 12:59 AM
So he would be on holiday? He could send news time to time still.


Why does God allow all tragedies happen? Which ones? If God does exist, then he created us like he did for ants before us, and cares as much about us than for any other form life he is the creator, ants included. Man must not be superior to a ant to him. So why should he bother if a anthill is crushed or a human civilization wiped out?

Have you heard of the incarnation? You French claim to be Catholics yet are ignorant of the basics.

God allows tragedies to happen because that is the consequence of Free Will in humanity.


The fact that some people, in our scientific age, don't accept the existence of even a "Supreme Intelligent Being" testifies to the amazing capacity man has for denying something he doesn't want to believe ;)

Precisely...it is man's Pride that keeps him from recognizing the things that are above him.

Weg
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 02:17 AM
Have you heard of the incarnation? You French claim to be Catholics yet are ignorant of the basics.

So I didn't pass my test? Snif... :(

I had catechism class when I was younger. So I suppose I did.

We claim to be Catholics? Hmm, I doubt a majority of present French claim that. As for me, I'm more of a "Catholic" by tradition than anything else. I don't go to chuch (not even to find a woman ;)) and don't believe the Bible is THE Truth.

Ignorant of the basics? So what about you? A true Christian is not supposed to lala before mariage. Tsk tsk. :sway ;)


God allows tragedies to happen because that is the consequence of Free Will in humanity.

Bah. Have you ever think about the possibility he allows tragedies happen for he actually doesn't exist?

Or

What if God really exists? Who can affirm he is interested in us? If he is, he should inform his followers of his disapprobation concerning the current situation.

Northern Paladin
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 02:25 AM
So I didn't pass my test? Snif... :(

I had catechism class when I was younger. So I suppose I did.

We claim to be Catholics? Hmm, I doubt a majority of present French claim that. As for me, I'm more of a "Catholic" by tradition than anything else. I don't go to chuch (not even to find a woman ;)) and don't believe the Bible is THE Truth.

Ignorant of the basics? So what about you? A true Christian is not supposed to lala before mariage. Tsk tsk. :sway ;)



Bah. Have you ever think about the possibility he allows tragedies happen for he actually doesn't exist?

Or

What if God really exists? Who can affirm he is interested in us? If he is, he should inform his followers of his disapprobation concerning the current situation.

The Bible tells us God is interested in us. But at the same time he doesn't force us to do things his way.

I will marry when I find the right girl. Until than I must look under every rock and crevace. :D

Rhydderch
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 04:54 AM
...or convincing himself of something he wants to believe?;)So you think science proves that there is no God, or even "Supreme Being"? The irreducable complexity needed to form the universe is simply far beyond the rules of probability. Random chance is not constructive, the universe clearly has a very complex structure, and therefore there has to have been a constructor behind it.

Thumelicus
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 05:44 AM
So you think science proves that there is no God, or even "Supreme Being"? The irreducable complexity needed to form the universe is simply far beyond the rules of probability.

"Irreducible complexity" is not science- it's a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance. Besides, science says nothing about "god" because there's really nothing to say.

Science suggests that a Supreme Being was not necessary for man to evolve or the planets to form. This does not mean that a Supreme Being doesn't exist, merely that he/she/it was probably irrelevant in creating the most important aspects of the world around us. Science renders “god” useless, which is even worse than saying it doesn’t exist.

Gaian Meroveus
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 06:26 AM
Comrades,






http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/FSM_himself.jpg

There exists as much empirical evidence that this spaghetti creature created the universe as there is proof of the existance of some Anthropomorphic father creator being.
We are created in Gods image? Why would this God need a nose or an elbow?

Best wishes,
_GM.

Ahnenerbe
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 10:27 AM
The fact that anyone in a modern industrial society can genuinely believe in an: invisible, non-communicative, magical anthropomorphic father creator being can only be attributed to acculturation. i.e. People believe in God because they have been hearing about God since they left the womb. They are brainwashed. Our remote ancestors invented Gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon and the events in their daily lives for which they could conceive of no rational explanation. For a modern, even semi- educated individual to truly believe in these irrational and scientifically insupportable beliefs is beyond me.
Agreed.

However, most god-believers are not systematically irrational or intellectually lazy. The fact that huge numbers of educated individuals in the US are still fanatical Christians shows that everybody doesn’t have the same use of the concept. Modern, educated god-believers gather in fact under the “god(s)” umbrella the full spectrum of the highest concepts and values their mind can grasp, whereas others just see the ridiculous aspects of religion. The Bible or other religious references are then used as a support to illustrate each and every concept god-believers need to apprehend. Therefore their religious views are not “false”, they are just the expression of the highest thoughts and values of this person, under a religious makeup that this person needs to organize his thoughts. Most people also aren’t able to stand for their own ideas and feelings against the majority, thus the religious interpretations are for them an easier way. Plus, it gives them a warm feeling of “being right” and the one of belonging to the community. That’s probably why the Christian profile type matches usually the “patriot” type in the States.

It’s not “believers against non-believers”, it’s just two different ways to express one’s intelligence and understanding of the world.

But in the end, those able to understand the world and its functioning themselves, living according to their own morality and manage complexity without the help of illustrations belong to a higher spiritual standard.

My main criticism towards Christianity is it’s total lack of style. If you need concepts to understand life, rather help yourself with the ancient indo-germanic myths and legends, they serve the same purpose in a more elegant way.



The intelligent Aristotle was no Christian, but he could see that only monotheism made logical sense, including as an explanation for the existence of the universe.

Jesus went further, trying to explain that "god" was in ourselves, which makes even more sense. Many non-Christians understand that either, while many Christians still don’t understand it. We don't need any explanation for the existence of the Universe, or more exactly we're pursuing unlimited knowledge through science. The myth of Prometheus speaks more to me than the tribulations of a bunch of Jews in their desert.

After all, what don’t we understand that we couldn’t understand with further work on our environment and on ourselves? Man is facing the infinitely small (our own brain, nanotech) and the infinitely huge (space); he will also redesign his social structures for more efficiency etc.

Gaian Meroveus
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 12:17 PM
Comrades,


I have no problem respecting an individuals right to practice their faith so long as they, conversely, recognise that their right to practice their faith ends where my right not to, begins.



Best wishes,
_GM.

Rhydderch
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 02:32 PM
"Irreducible complexity" is not science- it's a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance.:D ;) Can you honestly tell me these are your own unplagiarised words? And do you really understand the concept?

The concept itself undoubtably exists, regardless of the origin of the particular term I used. Irreducible complexity is found in all sorts of technology and man-made devices. Take a car engine for example; if any one of a number of major components is taken out, the whole thing would cease to function. Anyone knows that the components of a car engine have specific functions which are interrelated with eachother, and every one is constructively designed to work together with the other components.

And I don't think you'll find many people who would suggest that something like a car engine could be produced by random chance; yet many of the smallest organisms are infinitely more complex (and irreducably) than a car engine. This means that every component must have existed from the start, which means that, without constructive input, an amazing coincidence is required, and the chance of this happening is so phenomenally low as to be impossible in practical terms. And then you have similar "coincidences" repeated innumerable times throughout the universe.

If you saw someone toss a coin a thousand times, and it landed on the same side every time, would you assume that this was coincidence? Such an occurance is beyond the rules of probability, and I'm sure everyone would know something was happening which insured the chance was not 50/50.

Do some more googling and see if you can find an opponent of the idea who can fully explain the concept, and who can refute it using proper evidence, as opposed to using bald assertions like "unscientific", "religious" "not accepted by mainstream science" etc.


Besides, science says nothing about "god" because there's really nothing to say.

Science suggests that a Supreme Being was not necessary for man to evolve or the planets to form. This does not mean that a Supreme Being doesn't exist, merely that he/she/it was probably irrelevant in creating the most important aspects of the world around us. Science renders “god” useless, which is even worse than saying it doesn’t exist.As I said, "science" and indeed mathematics, shows that the rules of probability are not capable of constructing with functions which are interrelated in an irreducably complex way.

In short, if it weren't for the fact that I believe in the God of the Bible, who says that man in his blinded sinful state has an innate aversion to God and his righteous ways, I'd be totally at a loss to explain why some (even educated and intelligent) people deny the obvious scientific fact that the universe has been formed with intelligent input.

Gaian Meroveus
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Comrades,

I wonder who in this poll is from a nominally protestant background and who is from a catholic?

I have a feeling the members in the yes column may be Katholikers.

Best wishes,
_GM.

Theudiskaz
Friday, April 28th, 2006, 10:02 PM
You should start a poll. That would be really interesting!:thumbup
I come from a completely protestant background, myself.
On a related note we ought to have a poll that asks whether the person is both Nordid and protestant. It is traditonally believed that protestantism tends to attract more Nordics.:)

Jack
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 01:17 PM
You should start a poll. That would be really interesting!:thumbup

If it helps, my grandparents on both sides were Catholics, my parents are agnostic, and I'm reverting to Catholicism.


On a related note we ought to have a poll that asks whether the person is both Nordid and protestant. It is traditonally believed that protestantism tends to attract more Nordics.:)

It is, is it? By whom? Are the Irish and the French less Nordic than the English? :thumbdown

Siegfried
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 01:50 PM
Are the Irish and the French less Nordic than the English? :thumbdown

Actually, I think that is indeed the case. ;)

Thumelicus
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 07:21 PM
:D ;) Can you honestly tell me these are your own unplagiarised words? And do you really understand the concept?

As opposed to framing your own subjective sense of incredulity as an informed opinion? Simply because you can find other people who share your inexplicable belief in god does not add one shred of evidence towards the veracity of your "Supreme Being".

How dare you regurgitate the crackpot theories of Michael Behe and then accuse me of plagiarism.


The concept itself undoubtably exists, regardless of the origin of the particular term I used. Irreducible complexity is found in all sorts of technology and man-made devices. Take a car engine for example; if any one of a number of major components is taken out, the whole thing would cease to function. Anyone knows that the components of a car engine have specific functions which are interrelated with eachother, and every one is constructively designed to work together with the other components.

Yes, I have that book as well. I found it at a second hand bookstore on a clearance rack for a quarter. What's next? The evolutionary history of the flagellum? The eye? Oh yes, how about the blood clotting mechanism of the human body?

You understand that ID has been refuted by so many people, so many models, so many experiments that mentioning them all would require a completely different thread? I'm not interested in debating Behe here, because ID should be treated as a separate topic than "do you believe in god". I'm sure there are level-headed Christians who are absolutely appalled by it's duplicity.


In short, if it weren't for the fact that I believe in the God of the Bible, who says that man in his blinded sinful state has an innate aversion to God and his righteous ways, I'd be totally at a loss to explain why some (even educated and intelligent) people deny the obvious scientific fact that the universe has been formed with intelligent input.

I see, because I haven't submitted myself for brainwashing at my local church this Sunday, I am a blaspheming, unrepentant sinner and therefore incapable of grasping your "logic" and seeing the "truth" of Irreducible Complexity (IC).

My statements, mind you, were from someone who said that he wants to see evidence of the divine. I think it would be the greatest thing ever, better than contacting an extraterrestrial civilization. I hope the Christians are right, I really do... unfortunately, the record simply doesn't bode well for you guys.

Theudiskaz
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 07:47 PM
It is, is it? By whom? Well, whether you agree with this assertion or not, I'm a little surprised that your not familiar with it. "By Whom"...traditionally Nordics...of protestant faith.:D The belief that there is a correlation between Nordicism and Protestantism goes at least as far back as the turn of the last century. It was the general consensus among American Nordicists and Eugenecists in the early twentieth century that Protestantism was largely a "Nordid" phenomenon. You atleast have to admit that it's a Teutonic one!



Are the Irish and the French less Nordic than the English? :thumbdown
It would seem to be the case!

Imnotwearingsocks
Monday, May 1st, 2006, 01:45 AM
Comrades,

I wonder who in this poll is from a nominally protestant background and who is from a catholic?

I have a feeling the members in the yes column may be Katholikers.

Best wishes,
_GM.

Are you implying protestants don't believe in God anymore?:P

Rhydderch
Monday, May 1st, 2006, 03:42 AM
As opposed to framing your own subjective sense of incredulity as an informed opinion? Simply because you can find other people who share your inexplicable belief in god does not add one shred of evidence towards the veracity of your "Supreme Being".Quite true. The same applies to your view of course, and after all, you're the one who's basing his ideas about the origin of the earth on majority opinion.


How dare you regurgitate the crackpot theories of Michael Behe and then accuse me of plagiarism.Nothing to do with Michael Behe, in fact his name only slightly rang a bell when I googled for your plagiarism. Perhaps he popularised the term itself, I don't know, but as I indicated, the concept existed long, long before he was born.


Yes, I have that book as well. I found it at a second hand bookstore on a clearance rack for a quarter. What's next? The evolutionary history of the flagellum? The eye? Oh yes, how about the blood clotting mechanism of the human body?What book? An engine is an obvious example, that's why I gave it; I could swap it with any other device, a computer for instance. I've never read your "book", nor any by Michael Behe.

Is the concept invalid, or not? Do you think a computer could develop if the right materials were left to randomness for long enough?



You understand that ID has been refuted by so many people, so many models, so many experiments that mentioning them all would require a completely different thread?Likewise your view has been refuted time and again by scientists. The fact that more people have your idea doesn't make it more true.

However, even if you think there is no proof for it, Intelligent Design, by it's very nature, cannot be refuted scientifically, even if it were false. However, it's a very broad term and generally doesn't refer specifically to Creationists, so I don't actually support the idea as it's normally understood.


I'm not interested in debating Behe hereNeither is anyone else here, including myself.


I'm sure there are level-headed Christians who are absolutely appalled by it's duplicity.Yeah, the same "level-headed Christians" who say we must obey the message of Christ (i.e. "tolerance"), and therefore must tolerate every kind of sin under the sun, never mind the fact that his very reason for coming to the world was to save men from their sin. And of course, they choose the bits of the Bible they like and say they're the words of God, and everything they don't like is rejected as "myth". Level-headedness personified ;)


I see, because I haven't submitted myself for brainwashing at my local church this Sunday, I am a blaspheming, unrepentant sinner and therefore incapable of grasping your "logic" and seeing the "truth" of Irreducible Complexity (IC).Many blaspheming sinners know God exists, and admit it, so being such a person doesn't make them incapable of seeing the obvious truth; people have various ways of ignoring God, but some choose to deny his existence altogether.


My statements, mind you, were from someone who said that he wants to see evidence of the divine. I think it would be the greatest thing ever, better than contacting an extraterrestrial civilization.Good on you. However, if I heard someone claiming that a computer was produced without human assistance, simply by random motions of various materials, I wouldn't assume he was looking at it rationally; I'd take it as evidence that he didn't want to believe a human was responsible :D

The point about "IC" is that a simple organism (beside it's already irreducibly complex nature) cannot accumulate gradual changes, so in other words a single cell cannot develop into an elephant, no matter how many generations. In order for any organism to function, there must be a number of components all working together, and without one of them, the whole thing would have no function at all, which eliminates the possibility of it having developed from something simpler.

Aupmanyav
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 02:45 PM
No.
So who created the universe? Nobody, it is the outcome of the property of constituent of the universe (Hindus call it 'Brahman'. It constitutes space, time, and substance; sort of a quantum field).
How did this constituent come about? Don't know. Must be eternal. Let science say something on it. How can you jump to conclusions without proof?
Can you please it with prayers? It is not a sky-daddy, No.
Does it interfere in human affairs? No.
How things which affect humans happen? Chance, probablity.
Free-will, Free-will? Do you realize how many variables are at work?

Pervitinist
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 02:59 PM
No.
So who created the universe? Nobody, it is the outcome of the property of constituent of the universe (Hindus call it 'Brahman'. It constitutes space, time, and substance; sort of a quantum field).
How did this constituent came about? Don't know. Must be eternal. Let science say something on it. How can you jump to conclusions without proof?
Can you please it with prayers? It is not a sky-daddy, No.
Does it interfere in human affairs? No.
How are things which affect humans happen? Chance, probablity.
Free-will, Free-will? Do you realize how many variables work?

This view is not far away from my personal cosmology. However what I always found remarkable yet hard to understand about Hinduism was how the abstract notion of Brahman is at the same time also seen as personified in a personal deity (Brahmâ) as the creator of this universe. I think this notion is not merely folcloristic and not completely without sense since apparently we need some notion of a cause for every existing thing or event we can consistently think of - even for the world as a whole. Our mind seems to be somehow unable to imagine existence emerging from pure non-existence without any cause, and this inability might even be the main reason for the invention of creationist religions in the first place.

Would you as a hindu atheist say that it makes sense to suppose something like a creator, but not in the sense of monotheism, rather - e.g. - as part of a trinity of processes of creation, preservation and destruction (Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva or other)? And if so, is such a creator to be considered a person or rather an impersonal creative force (I'd probably opt for the latter).

Aupmanyav
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 03:49 PM
..man in his blinded sinful state..Alternative theories

The Exodus is described only in the Old Testament . There have been alternative theories about the Exodus for centuries and many studies have been conducted.

One thought provoking, but widely disputed, theory comes from Ahmed Osman. In this theory, the Egyptian Pharao Akhenaten, who introduced the revolutionary concept of monotheism in ancient Egypt, devoted so much attention to his new capital city of Akhet-Aten that he let the rest of Egypt fall apart. Akhenaten was followed as pharaoh by Smenkhkare, then Tutankhamun, then Ay. He was the High Priest of Akhet-Aten, known as the Divine Father (an hereditary title). Although originally a believer in Aten, Ay realised Egypt had to return to the old gods. The priests of Aten wouldn’t reconvert, so they had to go, along with the mass of Aten believers. Ay showered them with gifts, and sent them off to colonise Canaan, where the priests, the Yahus, became the Judahites, settling in the south in Judah, while the ordinary believers settled in the north, in Israel.

Ay was so respected as the Divine Father that he became worshipped as a personification of God; in the Aramaic version of the Old Testament God is called Ay, not Yahweh, and the word Adonay, used by Jews to avoid saying the name of God, Yahweh, aloud, means “Lord Ay”. When the Pentateuch came to be written during the Babylonian captivity, centuries later, Akhenaten became a template for Adam, and also for Abraham. The Israelite hero Moses, who in the Bible account led the Children of Israel out of Egypt, was based on Rameses, and his troublesome brother Aaron was the previous pharaoh, Horemheb, who succeeded Ay, and who tried to expunge all evidence of Aten worship and of his predecessors. Moses’ successor, Joshua, was Rameses’ successor Seti I. It is also argued that Hebrew was the lingua franca of the many different peoples at Akhet-Aten, borrowing from many sources including Egyptian and Ethiopian. The Exodus mystery has captured the attention of Western thinkers for centuries. Clemens of Alexandria in 200 AD was one of the first to mention a stunning similarity between the Egyptian symbols and those used by the ancient Hebrews.

Thus the "Chosen People" might not have been slaves from a foreign country but high-ranking Egyptian priests and the adherents of the monothiest pharaoh Akhenaton, cast out of Egypt. This would mean that the source of Hebrew, Christian and Islamic beliefs would go back even further, to the Pharaoh Akhenaten.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus)

The following could have also been said by any dictator. Seventh day reserved for remembering him.

(2) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (8) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. (9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work. (10) But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

World's worst dictators 2005: 1. Omar-al-Bashir, Sudan 2. Kim Jong-il, North Korea 3. Than Shwe, Myanmar (Burma) 4. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe 5. Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan 6. Hu Jintao, China 7. King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia 8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan 9. Seyed Ali Khamane'i, Iran 10. Teodoro Obiang Ngueme, Equitorial Guinea.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators

(12) Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (13) You shall not murder. (14) You shall not commit adultery. (15) You shall not steal. (16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (17) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Paraphrase it a little differently: Here is what Lord God said: Honor your parents (You will also get old, who would then care for you), you shall not murder (no society can survive if all people start killing each other), you should not commit adultery (unnecessary strife in society, you will spend time only on that and fighting with each other), you shall not steal (because your own possessions would be at a risk if others steal them), you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour (he would do the same to you, rule ambigous, God flipped, can you do it to one who is not your neighbour?), you shall not covet what belong to you neighbour (others also may do the same to your discomfiture, God was explicit here, his house, his wife, slaves (God approves having one), ox or donkey, etc., again, not clear if you can covet it if the person is not your neighbour, how many houses to leave). Quite amusing. God is certainly not a good writer of law. Basically there are just six laws. Is that is what is called the sinned state or a state of unawareness among children. These are taught by parents, family, and society. You don't need a God for just this?

Aupmanyav
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 06:01 PM
I always found remarkable yet hard to understand about Hinduism was how the abstract notion of Brahman is at the same time also seen as personified in a personal deity (Brahmâ) as the creator of this universe...Would you as a hindu atheist say that it makes sense to suppose something like a creator, but not in the sense of monotheism, rather - e.g. - as part of a trinity of processes of creation, preservation and destruction (Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva or other)?It is not very difficult to understand. Hinduism is an accommodating system, it accepts that one theory is not sufficient for all people who have different knowledge and mental make-up. So, it kept what is important for family and society separate and unalienable, 'Dharma' (duty/right action). It gives unlimited freedom as regards personal belief limited only by acceptance of another religion. So, you can debate, a non-interfering 'Brahman' or a personal deity, or three who are one or three thousand who are not one, whatever, that is your business.

As an atheist Hindu, creator, monism, monotheism or three Gods, nothing makes sense to me, basically no God. What makes sense to me, as I mentioned, is the concept of a quantum field 'Brahman' as cause of space/time/substance because of its inherent properties, not because of any desire on its part.

Aupmanyav
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 07:05 PM
The property of nature and the supposed properties of a God are different. It is a trickery to compare them.

CharlesDexterWard
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:06 PM
Do you believe in God?

Thrymheim
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:10 PM
Problem with that statement! which God? do I worship the Semitic God? no do I believe he exists? yes, probably There's always room for one more god out there!

Korpimaa
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:22 PM
One single God who is a personal being, such as the Semitic God? No.

I do however think it's possible that there's some kind of a higher force that is responsible for everything on this planet and which acts in a meaningful way, having certain objectives for its actions, whatever they may be.

CharlesDexterWard
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:28 PM
Problem with that statement! which God? do I worship the Semitic God? no do I believe he exists? yes, probably There's always room for one more god out there!

God is not the same as gods. You can believe in gods and yet also believe in God. Do you still have a problem with the question? It is not a statement, but a question. If you believe in gods but not in God, I believe the proper answer is "No", because I did not ask if you believe in "at least one god", but: Do you believe in God?

Hanna
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:28 PM
Do you believe in God?

What a question!

Thrymheim
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:30 PM
God is not the same as gods. You can believe in gods and yet also believe in God. Do you still have a problem with the question? It is not a statement, but a question. If you believe in gods but not in God, I believe the proper answer is "No", because I did not ask if you believe in "at least one god", but: Do you believe in God?

Then the answer is yes as I do believe in that God but not exclusivly that God if you see what I mean

CharlesDexterWard
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:33 PM
One single God who is a personal being, such as the Semitic God? No.

I do however think it's possible that there's some kind of a higher force that is responsible for everything on this planet and which acts in a meaningful way, having certain objectives for its actions, whatever they may be.

Would you object to calling this higher force God? If so, why?

Hanna
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:39 PM
Then the answer is yes as I do believe in that God but not exclusivly that God if you see what I mean

Meaning you believes in the higher existence ?

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 03:56 PM
I think there should be a 4. Option. I am not sure. Sometimes I think there is a God, sometimes I doubt Him. I go to Church and pray sometimes, but I wonder if someone is really listening. I hope one Day I will have more Certainty.

CharlesDexterWard
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 05:02 PM
I think there should be a 4. Option. I am not sure. Sometimes I think there is a God, sometimes I doubt Him. I go to Church and pray sometimes, but I wonder if someone is really listening. I hope one Day I will have more Certainty.

OK, I see. The question is about whether you believe or not. I could have asked "Does God exist?" or something like that, but I thought that it would not be a discussion about belief so much as a question of proof, and there is already a thread about that.

Imperator X
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 06:42 PM
I would answer if they had a "not sure" option, as I believe the question is, while simple, too open-ended.

I am at present an agnostic, I believe that the patterns inherent in nature are evidence of a superior Mover, but I see no evidence to suggest that that entity cares about me or the affairs of this world. Seeing as our Earth makes up only .000023 or some other negligible amount of mass of this one entirely ordinary solar system in an unimaginably vast Universe I think we are insignificant.

I believe however in the idea presented by mystical traditions of various religions, that the microcosm is intimately connected to and reflected in the Macrocosm. We are like cells composing higher and more complex structures.

I also believe that there are an infinite number of multiverses, their nature, and how we access and experience them is beyond my knowledge.

"What is behind the Beyond? I'm afraid some of us don't even know what's beyond the Behind."
- I forget.

Leof
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 06:45 PM
If this is not in the Christian section shouldn't it be drawn back from a singular 'god' to something more encompassing. Although the name god was originally a name for Odin the capital G variant today implies that you are speaking of the urban god that arose out of social reform in Ancient civilizations as form of control. In that case I will just answer 'don't care'.

These days the monotheistic cult has been reinvented to allow for a more personal opinion view. The "source" or "whole" or something else that boils it down to meaninglessness.

Talan
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 07:22 PM
This is a meaningless question because all people believe in the belief in God.

Gorm the Old
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 04:31 PM
First, I have trouble with the concept of belief. If , as it seems to me is so often the case, it means asserting the truth of a proposition without knowledge or proof, merely because one WANTS it to be true, then I oppose it. If it means accepting a proposition as an axiom for purposes of reasoning or discussion, I accept this.

Second, what do you mean by "God" ? If you mean a white-bearded anthropomorphic being enthroned somewhere up in the empyrean, definitely NO.

In my opinion, some of the facts of physics and speculations of cosmology are more readily explained by postulating the existence of an inconceivable and incomprehensible entity which had the ability to establish the values of the fundamental physical constants and to determine the ratios of matter and energy at the inception of the universe.

Because the term is freighted with anthropomorphism and illogical connotations, I would avoid calling this entity "God". I use the term "Supreme Being" to designate such an entity merely because, to me, at any rate, it lacks anthropomorphic connotations.

Do I "believe" in the Supreme Being ? As I defined belief above, no. I try to avoid "believing" ,in that sense of the word, in ANYTHING. I have postulated the concept of the Supreme Being as a convenient axiom for use in philosophical speculation.

CharlesDexterWard
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 04:57 PM
First, I have trouble with the concept of belief. If , as it seems to me is so often the case, it means asserting the truth of a proposition without knowledge or proof, merely because one WANTS it to be true, then I oppose it. If it means accepting a proposition as an axiom for purposes of reasoning or discussion, I accept this.Belief, or faith, is not necessarily intellectual in the way you describe it.

I deliberately chose a general terminology that is easy to relate to. Had I chosen my personal esoteric interpretations as alternatives, your complaint, and those of others here, would be more warranted, in my opinion.

But you explained what you think, and that is much appreciated. Maybe I should not take it as a complaint at all. It is just what more you wrote that makes me think that it is just that:


Second, what do you mean by "God" ?Already explained; you are not the first to ask.


If you mean a white-bearded anthropomorphic being enthroned somewhere up in the empyrean, definitely NO.LOL.

You assume too much. Look in your own heart.


In my opinion, some of the facts of physics and speculations of cosmology are more readily explained by postulating the existence of an inconceivable and incomprehensible entity which had the ability to establish the values of the fundamental physical constants and to determine the ratios of matter and energy at the inception of the universe.

Because the term is freighted with anthropomorphism and illogical connotations, I would avoid calling this entity "God". I use the term "Supreme Being" to designate such an entity merely because, to me, at any rate, it lacks anthropomorphic connotations.God with capital G is the better term in my opinion, since it is more general and less tendentious. "Supreme Being" suggests, or at least it could suggest, a distance, perhaps even unmanagable, between the believer and that Being. Then it is a rather narrow concept.


Do I "believe" in the Supreme Being ? As I defined belief above, no. I try to avoid "believing" ,in that sense of the word, in ANYTHING. I have postulated the concept of the Supreme Being as a convenient axiom for use in philosophical speculation.OK. So you postulate to explain things; you don't feel that you are in contact with the Supreme Being?

Loyalist
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 05:21 PM
Yes, of course.

Soldier of Wodann
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 05:25 PM
I put no just because I don't like how the question was posed. Higher powers do of course exist, I just don't believe in the silly fairy tales invented by senile savages 2000 years ago.

CharlesDexterWard
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 05:53 PM
I put no just because I don't like how the question was posed. Higher powers do of course exist, I just don't believe in the silly fairy tales invented by senile savages 2000 years ago.

You too assume too much. I will have to see your vote as a vote in opposition to me as a person then, because we have recently debated in another thread, over our disagreements. :( For someone I clearly disagree with, still, you make a lot of sense also to me. I just think there's too much whining about the way the question is asked. It is asked in a straightforward manner, a simple question, with simple answers, for everyone, to further a good debate - a general spiritual debate, on a general question.

Soldier of Wodann
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 09:11 PM
You too assume too much. I will have to see your vote as a vote in opposition to me as a person then, because we have recently debated in another thread, over our disagreements. :( For someone I clearly disagree with, still, you make a lot of sense also to me. I just think there's too much whining about the way the question is asked. It is asked in a straightforward manner, a simple question, with simple answers, for everyone, to further a good debate - a general spiritual debate, on a general question.

It wasn't in offense to you, its just that every time someone uses 'God' its in reference to whatever their God is, and since most of our contact is with Christians, hence the assumption it refers to that God. I don't really believe in any other specific Gods though either, so the answer would still be no. The term God is iffy with me, too many negative connotations.

skyhawk
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 11:30 PM
I don't personally believe in God or Gods but respect the right of others to believe what they choose to believe.

I don't have a problem with belief as such but I can have serious problems with what actions some people justify in the name of the Lord , whichever one we are talking about.

Religion a massive subject with massive effects on human relations/life and due to that , its presence has led me to form my own opinions on the subject of belief , right and wrong , life after death ( or not ) and so on much the same as everyone else. It's not like you can avoid it. :)

The outcome has been a distinct inclination towards Humanism , based on my life experience and observations ( so far )
Like all things manmade there is always the good , the bad and the plain ugly. Religion is no different in my eyes.

So it's not a case of what anyone chooses to believe or not to me , it's more a case of promotion of the better parts of those beliefs/teachings to try to create a better world , if not for yourself, for your children. Utopian ? Maybe , but no more utopian than the notion of Gods are to me.

Janus
Saturday, March 22nd, 2008, 03:08 AM
I actually do not really believe in God since I am too deeply agnostic in all my way of thoughts but since we cannot know whether there's God or not I simply thought about the pros and cons of both possibilities and eventually decided that there is a God. It's not really a believe but rather a decision.

CharlesDexterWard
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 02:09 PM
I believe in God. I believe there is a spark in my soul that connects me with the universal soul of God. God has many manifestations, such as Truth, Courage, Sacrifice, Honesty, Strength, Beauty and Might. God is more real in my experience than in any effort I made to believe intellectually.

Drakkar
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 04:26 AM
As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote beautifully, I believe that there indeed exists a God. I tend to weigh my reasons for this existence of a God heavily on his writings, but also on the fact of our inexplicable mysterious existence upon this Earth. Now, I cannot tell you for sure whether this is one God or a collection of Gods; I simply am not sure. However, I do believe that everything around us is too complex to be created by nothing. I have gone back and forth throughout my youth concerning this matter, but after letting go and experiencing life, I have come to the conclusion that there has to be some sort of everlasting creator. Unfortunately, I cannot explain my beliefs in more detail at this point.

CharlesDexterWard
Monday, April 14th, 2008, 11:16 PM
every time someone uses 'God' its in reference to whatever their God is, and since most of our contact is with Christians, hence the assumption it refers to that God. I don't really believe in any other specific Gods though either, so the answer would still be no. The term God is iffy with me, too many negative connotations.

It's a pity that a lot of people feel this way. I respect your point of view, but oftentimes I think that the blocking of God is either semiotic, being a mere reluctance against a word "God", or it is caused by some kind of issue with authority or truth as such. The latter is decidedly worse. I have met some people who call themselves atheists, with whom I can still have quite intriguing conversation on spiritual matters and essences, and by my private interpretation they wouldn't necessarily be so atheist.

Guntwachar
Monday, April 14th, 2008, 11:25 PM
I dont believe in god, i'm interested in paganism and Germanic-Mythology but i dont see those gods as spirits more as people that once lived and did things why people remember them as gods.
About Christianity i dont believe in anything that has to do with it, for me its the same as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

Hanna
Tuesday, April 15th, 2008, 01:06 PM
When my bother were dieing no man nor GOD rescued him. What I can say about this matter?

Northern Paladin
Sunday, April 20th, 2008, 03:32 AM
When my bother were dieing no man nor GOD rescued him. What I can say about this matter?

You can say Death is part of Life. I'm sorry, that Life has been so cruel to you. But often times one must taste the Bitter to realise the Sweet.

As for me. I believe in God, but he is neither Good or Evil, Nor does he care about the World. I imagine we are as ants to him.

Korpimaa
Sunday, April 20th, 2008, 09:53 AM
Would you object to calling this higher force God? If so, why?

No, I would not, as it's of very little if any importance to me what people wish to call this force. I also doubt the higher force itself is very particular when it comes to names that we use to describe it.

Personally I see no reason to call this higher force "God", as the name in itself contains a certain meaning I would not connect with this force that is extremely impersonal in nature. I think it would be misleading to do so.


I believe in God. I believe there is a spark in my soul that connects me with the universal soul of God. God has many manifestations, such as Truth, Courage, Sacrifice, Honesty, Strength, Beauty and Might. God is more real in my experience than in any effort I made to believe intellectually.

Apparently the way you see God is not far from my perception of this higher force that runs through the universe and everything in it. :)