Do you know that the God of the Bible exists?

Page 3 of 6 [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Do you know that the God of the Bible exists?
yes 28%  28%  [ 5 ]
no 72%  72%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 18

Mitch8817
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Jun 2007, 4:24 pm

'Faith'.


_________________
"Pray...NOW!" -Auron, before Bushido attack


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

02 Jun 2007, 4:44 pm

Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
It doesn't exist. If you believe in it, you're screwed.



prove it.


As I've said, I can't. But that doesn't make it less true, just less evidensible.

If there is no evidence for something, then how can you possibly claim to know that it is true?


I think you're still missing the metaphysics, if you will, of my statement. Also, I've neither said nor implied at any time that there's no evidence -- there's lots of evidence -- but rather that there is no proof. If you want me to repeat that I know it in my spirit, I won't. :)



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

02 Jun 2007, 4:45 pm

What evidence is there that your god exists? I have yet to see any.



MrSinister
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,560
Location: England

02 Jun 2007, 4:46 pm

Sopho wrote:
I am just as convinced, if not more convinced, that Adam and Eve did not exist, as I am that Santa doesn't leave presents under my tree every year. 8)


Wait... are you saying that Santa Claus isn't real?

Noooooooooooooooo!

*bursts into tears*

Ahem. In all seriousness, I know neither one way or the other if God exists, and I'm content with not being entirely certain. Continually asking questions is better, I think, that to assume I'm 100% correct.


_________________
Why so serious?


Last edited by MrSinister on 02 Jun 2007, 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

02 Jun 2007, 4:47 pm

"Human history began when the inheritance of genetics and behavior which had until then provided the only way of dominating the environment was first broken through by conscious choice." J. M. Roberts The New Penguin History of The World

The first revolutionary conscious choice was recorded in the Biblical legend of Adam and Eve. In the story, God told them not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they would die. Eve either had to trust that she should not eat of it because she was told so by God or trust her own reasoning, something she had never done before, and make a conscious choice.

She did not understand God's reasoning because he did not share it, but only his conclusion, that they would die. Eve, for the first time ever, not believing God, but the serpent and herself instead, reasoned that the tree was pretty to look at, good for food, and good for making one wise. She ate the fruit and gave some to Adam and he also ate.

Eve, leaning on her own understanding, reasons, and conclusions, made a conscious choice against what she was told by God about the tree. This made possible all rational thought and all conscious choice without which we could not now survive nor, incidentally, could we even define what is good or evil since there would have been no choice between the two.

Because of the success of our conscious choices, evolution selected that our heads grow to unusually large sizes to the point that pain in childbirth became overwhelming. The choice of gender roles based on an early sexually dimorphic state sustained the superiority of men over women through time although their differences in sizes became negligible. Also, conscious choice made the agricultural revolution possible so that people could eat by the sweat of their own faces rather than by finding what they needed in the wild like they used to in a what seemed like a garden. Isn't this exactly what God predicted would happen in the legend?

Although I don't think he would appreciate it in this context, I'll refer to Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. At this point the Cains of the world (agriculturalists) started killing the Ables of the world (hunter gatherers) for their land so they could expand their culture. The Huron Native Americans have a similar tale in their culture of two brothers fighting at the beginning of the world also between the agriculturalist and the hunter gatherers, but in their story, the hunter gatherers win. Coincidence? Anyway... I'm getting off track.

So we kept making rational choices, shaping our evolution and our fate up to the very present. Triumphantly, we now have, by our conscious choices, created global climate change, resistant strains of bacteria, and weapons of mass destruction. We continue to choose not to live a sustainable lifestyle and are slowly creeping towards our own destruction by our own rational choices. Can we really say that God's conclusion in the beginning was wrong? Surly they will die because of conscious choices, not Adam and Eve themselves but the entire species that they represent, us.

At this point, I think that God is rationally correct and that we didn't have the foresight to know his reasons back at that fateful tree. Given that our ability to reason for ourselves is what makes us fallen, it does not make sense that God would allow us to rationally choose to believe in God. Belief in God is, therefore, intentionally, strictly non-rational but not irrational just as to choose not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was also non-rational but not irrational.



Last edited by spdjeanne on 02 Jun 2007, 9:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

02 Jun 2007, 4:57 pm

Sopho wrote:
What evidence is there that your god exists? I have yet to see any.


You know what, Sopho? That's not my responsibility. I'm not going to babysit you, and spend my time teaching you what you can easily find for yourself. The repetitious questions from several people remind me of when the people kept asking Jesus "Are you the Christ?". Annoyed, he said, "I have told you already, but you did not hear. How will you hear if I tell you again?" They did not want to hear Him, they only wanted to question Him. Insane? You got it.



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

02 Jun 2007, 4:59 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
What evidence is there that your god exists? I have yet to see any.


You know what, Sopho? That's not my responsibility. I'm not going to babysit you, and spend my time teaching you what you can easily find for yourself. The repetitious questions from several people remind me of when the people kept asking Jesus "Are you the Christ?". Annoyed, he said, "I have told you already, but you did not hear. How will you hear if I tell you again?" They did not want to hear Him, they only wanted to question Him. Insane? You got it.

I hear exactly what you are saying. It just makes no sense. You have nothing to back up your claims, therefore I am questioning them. I don't see the problem with that. I certainly don't need 'babysitting' as you so nicely put it.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

02 Jun 2007, 5:03 pm

God exists for any person who believes in him.
God does not exist to a person who does not believe in him.
God is hope for people who long for it.

Would God exist if people wouldn't exist? kinda like asking
Would music exist if people wouldn't exist?

I could say in theory without being absolutly sure of it, that God might be like music.
What is music? can you touch it?
Those are just a group of sounds mixing together to form a meaning, but what is that meaning? what form does it have? I can't touch that, it isn't solid, it isn't tridimensional, it is in the mind.

God might be something in the mind, and just that, or maybe not.

I am not making any sense I guess.



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

02 Jun 2007, 5:43 pm

Did anyone read my loquacious post? Belief in God is always non-rational. Anyone asking for a proof for God's existence is asking for something that will and can never be. All you can really choose is your default position, to believe or not to believe. We are all "begging the question" with our claims of evidence for or even against God's existence. All I'm saying is that we all decide how to answer the question of God before we ask it.



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

02 Jun 2007, 5:45 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
Also, our conscious choice of gender roles may have sustained our sexual dimorphism, keeping men larger than women enabling men to rule over women.

What does that mean?



Phssthpok
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 227

02 Jun 2007, 6:03 pm

The only idea that doesn't require a leap of faith is that we are just primates living on an insignificant doomed speck so act accordingly.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

02 Jun 2007, 6:04 pm

spdjeanne, If I am not wrong I think you were trying to illustrate how women are veiwed in the Bible, being considered inferiors than men, and actually most of the Bible deals with this. Beginning with the blaming of Eve, as the first human to go against God commands, so she will have to suffer childbirth pain and so.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16



Last edited by greenblue on 02 Jun 2007, 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

02 Jun 2007, 6:07 pm

Gender 'roles' suck.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

02 Jun 2007, 6:18 pm

I think that you might be right that the belief in a God is non-rational thing, and is more centered in emotion, an emotional need, emotional reasoning if you will

If we would be completely unemotional than there would be no need to believing in any deity.



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

02 Jun 2007, 8:11 pm

I wrote out my thoughts too quickly. Edit! Edit! Edit! About gender roles, please don't mistake me, I do not believe in traditional gender roles. What I was trying to say is that when human beings were just coming into consciousness as a species they chose gender roles based on their present sexually dimorphic state. However, even when the sexual dimorphism became less noticeable and men and women were no longer very different in size or strength the gender roles sustained the former behavior. I'm saying that people are unfairly still sustaining gender roles based on an almost prehistoric model of human sexual dimorphism. Does that make more sense? I'm also trying to suggest that the "curses" of God in that Biblical story are more predictions about what would happen if we made conscious choices, consequences God allowed, rather than something God made happen.



Last edited by spdjeanne on 02 Jun 2007, 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

02 Jun 2007, 8:31 pm

Phssthpok wrote:
The only idea that doesn't require a leap of faith is that we are just primates living on an insignificant doomed speck so act accordingly.


First, please don't think what I'm saying is personal. I'm just analyzing what you've said. That position requires a leap of faith in your own ability to reason and in the ability of Scientific Method. I think that Science has rightly assumed that things are NOT until they are proven TO BE, innocent until proven guilty. However, if the guilt cannot be proven past all reasonable doubt does that mean necessarily that there is innocence or just that the guilt cannot be proven? Also, I don't think that the position I've taken, not that I explained very well, would require me to take actions very much different than your own. I'm actually trying to point out that I interpret the Biblical Creation Legend in the light of my understanding of evolution and not the other way around. I DO think that we are primates, but why does that mean that we are insignificant? Insignificant to whom? Also saying that something is a speck (small) doesn't necessarily mean insignificant. I don't think that size and significance are equivalent. Again, I don't know you. I'm just trying to analyze what you've said.