Does God exist?

[newjak]

Thats cool CM

[tshern]

admin said:

newjak said:

Don't get me wrong the Bible(especially the New Testament) does have many contradictions. The main gospels of John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew all havemany things in them that contradict the other. In fact the birth of Jesus is even different in them on some accounts.

The point is that they were written by Human decades after the events have taken place some of them having agendas and political views they want to get across. Human error and simple lack of primary sources makes up most o the contradictions in the Bible

Which is true, but that also makes up for good discussion, however you can only go so far on "facts" or just the "word" if you have no faith then all the reading and deciphering scriptures won't really matter, don't you agree?

I'm sorry, she hasn't gotten online yet, so I'll post what I remember now and get into the details later.

I had to quote that post because it has many points I was about to include here. Firstly, the Bible has been translated, modified and such dozens of times during the centuries/millennia (that is plural for 'millemmium,' right?) it has been ready. With what right and criteria have the works picked to the Bible? Why were some of the texts left out?

Well, if you want me to dig into the details of the actual content, I would have to go by guessing. Just tell me if you want me to, I'll give it my best shot and correct my arguments later when I get my friend online.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I'm sorry, she hasn't gotten online yet, so I'll post what I remember now and get into the details later.

No problem. I take it you're posting in place of tshern for the sake of this debate?

I had to quote that post because it has many points I was about to include here. Firstly, the Bible has been translated, modified and such dozens of times during the centuries/millennia (that is plural for 'millemmium,' right?) it has been ready. With what right and criteria have the works picked to the Bible? Why were some of the texts left out?

I agree that the Bible itself is made by humans and has problems in translation, because some languages and meaning simply don't translate the same. So it's altered a bit, or left out when made into a more modern version. I'm not sure if this is about the actual religion or the proof of his existence. I think the bible is our tool and guidance, but we must still put things into perspective with the world around us. There must always be an element of faith in it however.

Well, if you want me to dig into the details of the actual content, I would have to go by guessing. Just tell me if you want me to, I'll give it my best shot and correct my arguments later when I get my friend online.

I'd be happy to see the content you mean.

[tshern]

No problem. I take it you're posting in place of tshern for the sake of this debate?

Close call, it was me all the time.

I agree that the Bible itself is made by humans and has problems in translation, because some languages and meaning simply don't translate the same. So it's altered a bit, or left out when made into a more modern version. I'm not sure if this is about the actual religion or the proof of his existence. I think the bible is our tool and guidance, but we must still put things into perspective with the world around us. There must always be an element of faith in it however.

Not only has it been translated but some of the content has been modified/removed. The biggest dilemma with me is that I hate accepting dogmas just because a book tells me to. I just can't see the point in following something that I don't like too much. Creating own personal morals suits me better.

Moreover, I'd hate to accept a god who is unwilling to save people who don't believe in him. Especially if those people haven't heard of him and get doomed because of that. And why does God discriminate against some specific groups? Yeah, I've heard of many men recovering from a fatal cancer because of prayers, but I am yet to here such stories about men who have lost their limbs. Does God truly dislike amputees for some reason?

[Dja Majista]

Not only has it been translated but some of the content has been modified/removed. The biggest dilemma with me is that I hate accepting dogmas just because a book tells me to. I just can't see the point in following something that I don't like too much. Creating own personal morals suits me better.

Hmm. I guess my question to you would be: how do you percieve the bibles messages? When Jesus gives his teachings, I don't picture him shoving things down our throats but instead sharing wisdom to us that would be otherwise difficult to come across. Have you not had any luck with any of his teachings in particular? On the topic of your own personal morals, I also have my own personal morals. They just don't conflict with Jesus' teachings. To be honest, I think you'll find that morals you have that do conflict with Jesus' teachings will ultimately not be very desirable.

Moreover, I'd hate to accept a god who is unwilling to save people who don't believe in him. Especially if those people haven't heard of him and get doomed because of that. And why does God discriminate against some specific groups? Yeah, I've heard of many men recovering from a fatal cancer because of prayers, but I am yet to here such stories about men who have lost their limbs. Does God truly dislike amputees for some reason?

The same God loved people so much that he sacrificed his only son for us. At the same time, to truly earn heaven we must be wholly without sin. The fact is it's a wonder he even saves the people who do believe in him. I really don't think he could make a more generous offer. I would encourage you to explain if you think otherwise, though.

On the subject of loss of life and things of the sort. You have to understand that God, unlike us, sees things in the fullest perspective. To me, death may seem horrible as it means someone losing there life. But God sees it how it is: It simply means the soul's time on earth is up, and the soul will now await judgement.

I do understand what your saying about how he treats others better sometimes, and that brings up the topic of pharoah, which I can discuss tomorrow.

[Psyquis52]

I've been out of this conversation too long to be any good here.

admin said:

shakezula said:

I just never believed in him/her. The thought of God has always been like believing in Santa in my opinion.

Ok, I was confused on your opinion. I thought you were a fencesitter who read your stuff, but wasn't 100% sure, you aren't faithful that he *doesn't* exist, or an atheist though right?

psyquis52 said:

Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Ireland, England, Germany, Poland, Mexico, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Lousiana.

I believe I asked the wrong question then...

You used to live in Europe?

Yes I lived in Europe for about 5 months. I traveled a lot, but that was my job.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

psyquis52 said:

I've been out of this conversation too long to be any good here.

admin said:

Ok, I was confused on your opinion. I thought you were a fencesitter who read your stuff, but wasn't 100% sure, you aren't faithful that he *doesn't* exist, or an atheist though right?


I believe I asked the wrong question then...

You used to live in Europe?

Yes I lived in Europe for about 5 months. I traveled a lot, but that was my job.

Don't worry about me and David or tshern, we get wordy, we'd like your opinion.


What did you think of Ireland btw?

[Psyquis52]

admin said:

psyquis52 said:

I've been out of this conversation too long to be any good here.

Yes I lived in Europe for about 5 months. I traveled a lot, but that was my job.

Don't worry about me and David or tshern, we get wordy, we'd like your opinion.


What did you think of Ireland btw?

For the most part I just stayed in Belfast, which is awful, but then again most war torn areas are awful. Other than that it was pretty cool.
Poland was by far the best experience I had in Europe. People were generally nicer there and most spoke English fairly well.

As far as my opinion on this matter...

There is a great deal of evidence that God exists in my life and in my past experiences, however if I were to list said things here most people would either think I was insane or lying. People tend to ignore or dismiss the miraculous because it's easier on their minds.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

For the most part I just stayed in Belfast, which is awful, but then again most war torn areas are awful. Other than that it was pretty cool.
Poland was by far the best experience I had in Europe. People were generally nicer there and most spoke English fairly well.

As far as my opinion on this matter...[/quote] Poland eh? I have heard alot of places there are politically unstable and some aren't as fond as religion as others.

There is a great deal of evidence that God exists in my life and in my past experiences, however if I were to list said things here most people would either think I was insane or lying. People tend to ignore or dismiss the miraculous because it's easier on their minds.

Which is more common for people do surrender to themselves than to attempt to learn more, to delve in ignorance. It makes little sense honestly.

[Psyquis52]

admin said:

For the most part I just stayed in Belfast, which is awful, but then again most war torn areas are awful. Other than that it was pretty cool.
Poland was by far the best experience I had in Europe. People were generally nicer there and most spoke English fairly well.

As far as my opinion on this matter...

Poland eh? I have heard alot of places there are politically unstable and some aren't as fond as religion as others.

There is a great deal of evidence that God exists in my life and in my past experiences, however if I were to list said things here most people would either think I was insane or lying. People tend to ignore or dismiss the miraculous because it's easier on their minds.

Which is more common for people do surrender to themselves than to attempt to learn more, to delve in ignorance. It makes little sense honestly.[/quote]Very true.

[alfheim]

The problem with proving the existence of God is that God is infinite. Since God is infinite he has to be everywhere and in everything. I think you can prove that the universe is infinite and this can be proof of the existence of God. The problem is you can only use finite intelligence to gain some understanding of what God is. You know God exists but if you try to define God absolutely you will always fail. Religons teach prayer and meditation as a means to try and transcend finite intelligence.

tshern said:

I'm an oddball even with my opinions about the God.

I really don't believe in God, nor do I care if he exists. There are just too many paradoxes with omnipotence for people ever to realise whether God actually exists or not. You know, if he was omnipotent, he should move every single particle in existence, thus also control our minds and actions. Food for thought.

If something is infinite it will contain all possibilities even contradictions.

tshern said:

I'm an oddball even with my opinions about the God.

However, if we talk about the God Christians worship, I say I hope he doesn't exist. The Bible is a book with a lot of consistent mistakes and errors. The message it conveyes is at many parts outdated nowadays, even though God is supposed to be eternal. Yes, the message of love is still valid, but I just can't tolerate all the unjust things "God" has told us via Bible.

Peace and love, mates.

The Bible is not supposed to be taken literialy, for example the story of Adam and Eve is supposed to be about duality. It is metaphorical.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

alfheim said:

The problem with proving the existence of God is that God is infinite. Since God is infinite he has to be everywhere and in everything. I think you can prove that the universe is infinite and this can be proof of the existence of God. The problem is you can only use finite intelligence to gain some understanding of what God is. You know God exists but if you try to define God absolutely you will always fail. Religons teach prayer and meditation as a means to try and transcend finite intelligence.

So the means of defining him can never be 100% accurate to human means, we can never prove 100% because some of it is beyond our reasoning. I agree with that.

[alfheim]

Exactly, but it seems to me that we can prove that infinity exists through the theory of cause and effect. So we know that God exists but we dont know exactly what God is.

There is a story in ancient Egypt which states that in the past everybody believed in God and everybody had wings but when they started discussing with each other about God they lost their wings. I think the moral of the story is not that we should not talk about God, but when we try to define absolutely what God is then we miss the concept of God completely.

admin said:

So the means of defining him can never be 100% accurate to human means, we can never prove 100% because some of it is beyond our reasoning. I agree with that.

Also I belive that humans can become more than human and evolve. So we can fully understand God but not with human means.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Exactly, but it seems to me that we can prove that infinity exists through the theory of cause and effect. So we know that God exists but we dont know exactly what God is.

Agreed, we can never 100% truly scope what he is, but we can defintely form a relationship with him through love.

There is a story in ancient Egypt which states that in the past everybody believed in God and everybody had wings but when they started discussing with each other about God they lost their wings. I think the moral of the story is not that we should not talk about God, but when we try to define absolutely what God is then we miss the concept of God completely.

Which story do you mean in particular?

Also I belive that humans can become more than human and evolve. So we can fully understand God but not with human means.

Through meditation or after death?

[alfheim]

admin said:

Agreed, we can never 100% truly scope what he is, but we can defintely form a relationship with him through love.

Yes but bare in mind God can be an infinte number of things. God can be male, female or more than one person. God reveals himself in different forms. As humans we start with form and structure then try to transcend it.

admin said:

Which story do you mean in particular?

Sorry dont remember what its called I just remember hearing about it and understanding its meaning later. It has the same meaning as the story of Adam and Eve. Before Adam ate the apple he was in a state of union. When he ate the apple he became aware of duality hot and cold, light and dark, pleasure and pain etc. The main reason why man suffers is because of his perception of reality. Mankind percieves opposites when in truth there is no good or bad everything is good.

admin said:

Through meditation or after death?

It can be both. Deep meditation can be similar to being dead. I think the way science is progressing we may find a way to use it as well.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Yes but bare in mind God can be an infinte number of things. God can be male, female or more than one person. God reveals himself in different forms. As humans we start with form and structure then try to transcend it.

Of course but in biblical terms we refer to him, and he acknowledges himself as he, and even Jesus calls him father. Man was first and then woman to give the man company.

Sorry dont remember what its called I just remember hearing about it and understanding its meaning later. It has the same meaning as the story of Adam and Eve. Before Adam ate the apple he was in a state of union. When he ate the apple he became aware of duality hot and cold, light and dark, pleasure and pain etc. The main reason why man suffers is because of his perception of reality. Mankind percieves opposites when in truth there is no good or bad everything is good.

But without bad can there be good? If everything was the same, would it have a certain quality to it?

Like if there was no darkness would there be light.

It can be both. Deep meditation can be similar to being dead. I think the way science is progressing we may find a way to use it as well.

It's always good to use all of your resources.

[Dja Majista]

alfheim said:

The problem with proving the existence of God is that God is infinite. Since God is infinite he has to be everywhere and in everything. I think you can prove that the universe is infinite and this can be proof of the existence of God. The problem is you can only use finite intelligence to gain some understanding of what God is. You know God exists but if you try to define God absolutely you will always fail. Religons teach prayer and meditation as a means to try and transcend finite intelligence.

I disagree that God is infinite in the aspect you're talking about. If I'm not mistaken you're saying he is infinite of everything and anything, correct? While all of God's traits are of infinite magnitude God does not possess an infinite number of traits. There are definite things about his nature that determine his traits as I will explain below.

If something is infinite it will contain all possibilities even contradictions.

There are some things that do help define God. You may have read the scriptures in Corinthians that talk about what love is (pacient, kind, etc.) and what it is not (does not boast, does not rejoice in wrong doing, etc.) then it procedes to state that God is love. It's arguable wheather this truly means that God and love are the exact same thing, but it certainly means God never and will never contradict his loving nature.

The Bible is not supposed to be taken literialy, for example the story of Adam and Eve is supposed to be about duality. It is metaphorical.[/quote]

Why do you say that? It's clear in the bible that the story of Adam and Eve did happen. The bible is a history book; the only purely metaphorical stories you will get out of it will be stories told by the people in the book like Jesus's parables.
I do however agree that it's about duality. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they ate from afterall.

[Psyquis52]

The Bible is not so much a history book as it is a road map for life.
If it were a history book it would go into further explination on other matters.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I agree, we can never 100% prove all of the things in the bible to be right or wrong, and will only get into more arguments, but we can definitely benefit from it and learn from what we read, by applying it into our lives.

[alfheim]

damasta said:

There are some things that do help define God. You may have read the scriptures in Corinthians that talk about what love is (pacient, kind, etc.) and what it is not (does not boast, does not rejoice in wrong doing, etc.) then it procedes to state that God is love. It's arguable wheather this truly means that God and love are the exact same thing, but it certainly means God never and will never contradict his loving nature.

Actually forget what I said about contradictions.

damasta said:

Why do you say that? It's clear in the bible that the story of Adam and Eve did happen. The bible is a history book; the only purely metaphorical stories you will get out of it will be stories told by the people in the book like Jesus's parables.
I do however agree that it's about duality. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they ate from afterall.

Well remember first of all im not a Christian but I dont put my nose up at the Bible. The Bible has alot of important lessons to teach but people dont know how to intepret it.

When I say that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literialy this is what I mean. Did Adam actually eat an apple? Was there really a tree or was it something else? This is an incident that happened on the Spiritual plane so what happened cannot be precisely explained through words. The story is supposed to give you some idea of what happened not exactly what happened.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

alfheim said:

damasta said:

There are some things that do help define God. You may have read the scriptures in Corinthians that talk about what love is (pacient, kind, etc.) and what it is not (does not boast, does not rejoice in wrong doing, etc.) then it procedes to state that God is love. It's arguable wheather this truly means that God and love are the exact same thing, but it certainly means God never and will never contradict his loving nature.

Actually forget what I said about contradictions.

damasta said:

Why do you say that? It's clear in the bible that the story of Adam and Eve did happen. The bible is a history book; the only purely metaphorical stories you will get out of it will be stories told by the people in the book like Jesus's parables.
I do however agree that it's about duality. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they ate from afterall.

Well remember first of all im not a Christian but I dont put my nose up at the Bible. The Bible has alot of important lessons to teach but people dont know how to intepret it.

When I say that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literialy this is what I mean. Did Adam actually eat an apple? Was there really a tree or was it something else? This is an incident that happened on the Spiritual plane so what happened cannot be precisely explained through words. The story is supposed to give you some idea of what happened not exactly what happened.

So you are saying a large part of the meaning is metaphorical and may have different meanings to different peoples and translations, but the spiritual meaning stays the same?

[alfheim]

admin said:

alfheim said:

So you are saying a large part of the meaning is metaphorical and may have different meanings to different peoples and translations, but the spiritual meaning stays the same?

Well yesssss. I think some parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken literially because they are supposed to be historical, but common sense dictates that even these stories are not to be taken literially in action. For example when reading about Jesus you dont have to do exactly what he did but you should try to understand the 'spirit' of what he was trying to do.

When the Bible talks about God and stories like The Fall Of Man, these stories have to be taken metaphoricaly because they are dealing with concepts that human beings cannot fully understand. Paradise is a place where you become one with God so you cannot use words to completely describe what happened to Adam and Eve therefore the story has to be taken metaphoricaly.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

alfheim said:

admin said:

alfheim said:

So you are saying a large part of the meaning is metaphorical and may have different meanings to different peoples and translations, but the spiritual meaning stays the same?

Well yesssss. I think some parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken literially because they are supposed to be historical, but common sense dictates that even these stories are not to be taken literially in action. For example when reading about Jesus you dont have to do exactly what he did but you should try to understand the 'spirit' of what he was trying to do.

When the Bible talks about God and stories like The Fall Of Man, these stories have to be taken metaphoricaly because they are dealing with concepts that human beings cannot fully understand. Paradise is a place where you become one with God so you cannot use words to completely describe what happened to Adam and Eve therefore the story has to be taken metaphoricaly.

I can understand to a degree, we men have limitations and should look at these stories as a way to live our life by (and how not to live it by) rather than trying to make it a history book as Psyquis and I pointed out earlier as well.

[Dja Majista]

...When I said it's a history book, I wasn't trying to imply that the history itself was the focus; simply that all the events were historical...

anyway...

Well remember first of all im not a Christian but I dont put my nose up at the Bible. The Bible has alot of important lessons to teach but people dont know how to intepret it.

When I say that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literialy this is what I mean. Did Adam actually eat an apple? Was there really a tree or was it something else? This is an incident that happened on the Spiritual plane so what happened cannot be precisely explained through words. The story is supposed to give you some idea of what happened not exactly what happened.

No... this event took place on earth, not necessarily a spiritual plane. In fact, some have discerned that the garden of eden was located near the Euphrates. Plus you have to take into account that after they left the garden, they lived somewhere else on earth and proceded to have children and multiply... I'm saying, yes, it was a tree and no it wasn't necessarily an apple but it was a fruit . What makes you think that these things could not possess such a powerful feature as to unlock man's ability to discern between right and wrong? especially when an omnipotent God was the designer.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

...When I said it's a history book, I wasn't trying to imply that the history itself was the focus; simply that all the events were historical...

anyway...

Well remember first of all im not a Christian but I dont put my nose up at the Bible. The Bible has alot of important lessons to teach but people dont know how to intepret it.

When I say that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literialy this is what I mean. Did Adam actually eat an apple? Was there really a tree or was it something else? This is an incident that happened on the Spiritual plane so what happened cannot be precisely explained through words. The story is supposed to give you some idea of what happened not exactly what happened.

No... this event took place on earth, not necessarily a spiritual plane. In fact, some have discerned that the garden of eden was located near the Euphrates. Plus you have to take into account that after they left the garden, they lived somewhere else on earth and proceded to have children and multiply... I'm saying, yes, it was a tree and no it wasn't necessarily an apple but it was a fruit . What makes you think that these things could not possess such a powerful feature as to unlock man's ability to discern between right and wrong? especially when an omnipotent God was the designer.

What do you supposed actually happened to Eden then?

[Dja Majista]

Two possibilities: the unlikely one being, it may have been burned when God sent cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life.

So He drove out the man; and he placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
--Genesis 3:24 NKJV

That may have destroyed the garden itself, but if that's not what did it, the flood most certainly did.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

Two possibilities: the unlikely one being, it may have been burned when God sent cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life.

So He drove out the man; and he placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
--Genesis 3:24 NKJV

That may have destroyed the garden itself, but if that's not what did it, the flood most certainly did.

So you don't think it just vanished then?

[Dja Majista]

Could be. Does it matter? It was there, and now it's not.
To be honest though, don't you think this whole metaphor discussion is off topic?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

Could be. Does it matter? It was there, and now it's not.
To be honest though, don't you think this whole metaphor discussion is off topic?

It's a topic of the discussion. Does God existing matter? We can't see him. So what does sitting online talking about him accomplish? That's what someone reading this thread could ask as well.

Each main discussion always breaks down until it focuses on one initial point, you never just answer the main question, a good discussion has loads of smaller points that must be addressed first before the main conclusion comes. This broke down from a previous point in the discussion so I wouldn't deem it off topic unless it becomes counterproductive, which it isn't.

[Dja Majista]

ok, counterproductivity determines what's off topic. I'll keep that in mind. I just don't see the metaphor thing tying in.