GOD:True or false

[the_exterminator321]

Re: GOD:True or false

u said that god should stop the disasters maybe he caused them to punish non believers u kno, if there was no god then people wouldn't have gone on for so long in believing in him. 1 time my dad's battery ran out cause he left the head light on 4 too long and u cant do anything if ur battery runs out so he prayed and then the battery went back to life miracle? probably a car batery thats been working all night (keeping head light on) wont work in 5 min if u don't do anything to the battery (like charge it)

 

[Dmitri]

Re: GOD:True or false

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Observer\")</div>

The problem for me is that I don't believe in any god, [/b]

This is a big problem, which I will address later. Briefly, materialism is the worst and most aggressive religion born on antiscientific Darwinism and lazy ignorance wearing \"scientifically\" made official clothes for common \"sense\" \"protection\" of millions. I know many such tailors personally. I will not buy a handkerchief from them. Think twice.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Arcadia\")</div>

God may be someone that leads us to have faith, believe and chace our dreams.[/b]

I trust we are all open here. I like your post very much.

 

[fanavans]

Re: GOD:True or false

I can prove its not all material. Follow these instructions to the letter and you will know that there is more then you know. It is important to actually do what these instructions tell you to do, not think about doing them or think that you are doing them - do them. It is a subtle but very important difference.

1. Think of a pencil for about one minute without thinking of anything else. Consider it in every way - eg, it's made of wood and graphite, its x cm long, its sharp until you wear it down...etc...

2. Then spend a minute thinking about what you were just doing. I was thinking about a pencil. Thoughts went through my head...etc. etc...

3. Now Think about what you were just doing. I was considering my thoughts. They were... And desribe them in detail... hehehe

4. Ask yourself who was doing step three?

You'll see...

 

[Dmitri]

Re: GOD:True or false

This is a good point, to learn who we are, not to think, as somebody pointed here neatly, that we are $8 worth of chemicals that got lucky.

 

[Alpha and 0mega]

Re: GOD:True or false

Well...i am kinda lost in this thread bout what u guys r talking bout.
But this is my idea on God.

Let us now belive that those UFO r real.they r indeed E-T visiting us.From ancient's drawing,we can see what seems to be E-T,huge head,flying sausers,ETC..
These aliens r very much more superior than ancient human.So human tend to look up upon them as "GOD".When ancient human saw these "god" from the sky,they thought that GOD MUST BE FROM THE HEAVENS!!.And so,centurys later..the myth is still widely belive that god r from the sky.It is pretty ridiculous!!HOw can we still now belive these "GOD".there is nothing is the heaven,besides there r so many flaw in these "GOD" that i have listed down in the first post in this thread.

HOW i wonder when will those people come to their senses.

 

[LetThereBeLight!]

Re: GOD:True or false

Same ol' irrational belief system!

Want to know why God has to exist in the first place?

Technology becomes so powerful in the future, that there is always the possibility that humans can and may commit mass suicides!

Whether space aliens or anything else, there are the laws of nature, and that is called physics!

The laws of nature do not have to dictate to any species inhabiting this Universe.
There is the also the possibility that any species can rise above the laws of nature, and see a need for doing that.

If you can create a weapon that can destroy the part of the universe that you live in, you will always have the possibility that any species can or may commit mass suicide, therefore to escape from that line of reasoning, God has to exist!

Religion is the tool that leaves any species to escape from the laws of nature, and learn to live, rather than die.

That is the only possibility that remains a constant in this time and in any future time, the possibility to self-destruct on a scale that involves the entire universe at some point in the future! It may be limited, that is for sure, but then, that leaves the possibility that future technology can wipe out an entire species of aliens, if it is not used correctly. Some people will play God, I can only hope that some humans can get far enough away from that type of irrational thinking. Holding people in control is one way of suggesting mass suicide for an entire species of any Space Aliens, and certainly Humans are a Space Alien Species, and are considered "dangerous"!

Humans are dangerous!
Humans are dangerous!
Humans are dangerous, and more dangerous, and extremely more dangerous in the future! Unless God is sought out, and is thought to exist.

God allows 'free will' to exist, or not exist as a species in the future!

Technology dictates that the technology will be so powerful in the future, that humans may well wipe out theirselves as a species, and any Space Alien Species will have to have that thought --- when technology becomes that burden to any species in the universe!

And I mean the humble type of religion, and not the aggressive use of religion as an excuse as it exists with some type of people today. That is not religion, in the first place! You the Devil!

 

[Dmitri]

Re: GOD:True or false

People are not ideal because they are not direct product of God but, probably, product of higher intelligence of unavoidably limited capacity fighting material constrains, including self-constrains, like we are. A lot depends on what definition of God you hold.. If you cannot give an adequate definition, you can start from descriptions of qualities of the absolute. I would say something like this is the origination factor, the factor of existence per se, including every moment, not only the "moment of creation". Depending on your views, God may also be everything existent and nothing else outside of it. Along this line, God himself needs perfection at different levels, and we are manifestation of this need. The singularity of this is that God is both complete and not, depending on the perspective of a partial view.
In my opinion, God definitely includes ways of communicating our needs and hopes to him, and making change this way, however limited level of intelligence we represent (this is what a materialist would lack at a conscious level, but still use subconsciously).

 

[xeoncat]

Re: GOD:True or false

1) there are so many gods because people need to fabric their own to reach happiness. Life is unforgiven, so caring gods must be made. Does it mean there is no God? NO! It doesn\'t even mean that those fabricated gods have no power, but I will let that to another reply.

<span style=\'color:Black\'>2) You wear clothes because you\'re inside a civilization which wear clothes. Have you ever thought of that? The representations you see of God are human artistic views.

3) Why does God need to be caring and almighty? the catholic god is the only one you are speaking against.
You upset some freak guy, he shoots you in the head. Was it god\'s fault? Maybe it was the freak\'s mother, maybe it was the freak\'s grand grand father who concieved his grand father, maybe it was your fault because you upset him, maybe it was because the universe was created in the first place and all things were set in motion to make it work correctly. The Evil is a Necessary Evil, is intrinsic to the universe itself and you consider it Evil because of a human convention.
IF god is infinitely good, THEN he can\'t be almighty. IF god is almighty THEN he can\'t be infinitely good. God can\'t be infinitely good and almighty at the same time - this is some Wilhelm Leibniz maxim, I think you should read his work on metaphysics.

4) God it\'s all around you, inside you, outside you, in the tree, in the rock, everywhere. Call it what you want. I just call it The Origin.

5)What i say is,\\"god created us,we created god\\". It doesn\'t have to be that way. You are much more advanced than a cockroach and if the cockroach believe in you, does it means that it created you? NO! Have you ever tried to show your power to a cockroach? Maybe you even killed many of them because you find them really ugly and disgusting. Does that make you feel like God? certainly. Yet you are not the cockroache\'s God. You didn\'t create it and it didn\'t created you either.
Even more. Does a rock ever tried to explain to you? God may not be aware of your petty existence and may not have the means to communicate with you. and It might kill you someday

Try to free yourself from your catholic world view, it\'s really poisonous. But If you start to believe in an uncaring God, I alert you that you may want to gather up some caring and loving gods, or everything else can go reeeeeaally wrong. believe me.
</span></span></span>

 

[Nakquda]

Re: GOD:True or false

The traditional Christian belief falls under the definition of theism, specifically monotheism. This religion believes that God created the universe. Rowe rationalized the idea that God is a self-existent being. He says that the existence of everything is either dependant upon another being or is self-existing. Since everything can not be dependant upon another being, there must be at least one self-existent being. The traditional Christian God must be a self-existent being (Rowe 25). Since God created everything, then God must be omnipotent. God would have to have the ability to harness all the power of the universe in order to create it, therefore, God is all-powerful since God controls all the power in the universe. God must also be omniscient because God created the universe and all its laws, thus he should know how everything works and will come to be. A self-existent being should know what it creates, how it is created, and what the creation will become. God must also be omnipresent since God is part of the universe he created. God should be everywhere in the universe.

The traditional Christian God is said to be all-good. According to Christian myth, God gave Moses a set of moral rules, the Ten Commandments. These Ten Commandments were to be the supreme rules for humans to follow. These rules distinguish between right and wrong. The belief in the traditional Christian God is an ethical monotheistic belief. Since God said what was right and what was wrong and God supported right actions, then God must be good. Someone who believes in the traditional Christian God would believe that God was omni-benevolent.

According to B. C. Johnson, the theory of the traditional Christian God fails because he allows evil. Johnson says that God can not be all-good if he allows some evil to exist. If God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, then why would he allow an innocent baby to burn in a fire? The fact that the baby will go to heaven is irrelevant. Even if the baby's death produced a significantly good outcome, an all-good God would not allow the smallest amount of evil to exist. Thus, if God is all-good then he is obviously not all-powerful since he allowed this evil to occur. Basically, Johnson states that the traditional Christian God can not exist because there is preventable evil in the world and he does not stop that evil (Johnson 85).

Johnson appeals to critics saying that even if it is someone’s free will to burn a baby, God still did not stop the evil act. The argument that we have to face disasters to become independent fails because we would have to face all disasters on our own, not just some. Johnson sarcastically suggests getting rid of fire departments and medical facilities since they exist to aid those in need. Johnson goes as far as to say that the idea of maximizing moral urgency from any evil is wrong and is not a reasonable argument for why God allows evil (Johnson 86). It is not an argument of why God allows evil to exists, rather it is an argument of why God allows more evil to exists than is necessary. According to Johnson, only a small amount of evil is needed for people to know what is good. Even a claim to God’s “higher morality” is stomped because if God has a different morality than us then we have no way of justifying his actions, anymore so than a child judging the actions of a parent (Johnson 87).

Johnson attacks faith by saying that to have faith in someone is like having confidence in a friend. There is no way to prove that your friend is good if all the evidence says your friend is not. Sure you may know your friend and his character as a good person, but if your friend’s behavior does not follow a good path for some time, your opinion of your friend’s goodness will change. Johnson makes a good point when he claims that by saying you have trust in God, you are only showing your stubbornness (Johnson 88).

In the closing of his argument, Johnson says that the moral character of God can be: “(a) that God is more likely to be all evil than he is to be all good; (b) that God is less likely to be all evil than he is to be all good; or (c) that God is equally to be all evil as he is to be all good (Johnson 88-89).” He says that it is unlikely that God is all good in cases (a) and (c). Case (b) fails as well. Johnson therefore concludes that it is unlikely that God is all good (Johnson 89).

If the traditional Christian God exists, then the traditional Christian God is the creator of the universe. The traditional Christian God is also all-good, meaning God would not allow evil in the world if it could not prevented. Since God is omniscient, God would know of evil that could be stopped. And since God is omnipotent, God can stop anything from happening, especially evil, thus evil can be prevented. There must not be preventable evil in the world since God does not stop evil acts; however, it is apparent that all evil can be prevented since God is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. God has the ability to know there is evil, he has the ability to stop evil, and he is obliged to stop evil since he is all good, but God does not stop evil (Johnson 85). Therefore, the traditional Christian God does not exist since there can not be both preventable evil and nonpreventable evil (Johnson 89).

Johnson uses the idea that God is evil to promote that God does not exist. Most of the essay focuses on why he believes God to be evil. The argument just seems to want to make people angry at God rather than to convince them that there is no God.

Johnson says that the argument of “one would not know good if there was no evil” fails because evil as small as a toothache would provide enough moral urgency to know good. Johnson's argument fails because to know good, one would have to know what was equally bad. A minor toothache does not cause a person to do only good any more does a spanking causes a child to stop all bad behavior for the rest of his life. Even though Johnson makes considerations for some evil to exist to maximize moral urgency, he contradicts himself by saying only as much evil as a toothache is needed. His toothache example may be sarcasm but it undermines his argument that there is a need for some evil to maximize moral urgency.

According to the creation myth of Christianity, God gave humans the chance of eternal bliss in ignorance or freewill with knowledge. Humans chose freewill, allowing humans to make their own decisions which decide their own future. Since humans to make their own decisions, they determine their own future. Humans are free to make whatever choices they want. If God stood by and forced humans to do only good, then there would be no freewill. Since God obviously does not do that, this allows for bad things to happen. There is no proof that God strikes anyone down for choosing evil over good, but God does not stop. If God stopped it, it would not be freewill.

If God were to stop all evil, then there would be no such thing as freewill. Sure, freewill can exist as decisions between good things, but how would one know which decision was the correct decision if there were no bad attributes to either decision? It would be pointless to make any decision at all if they would all be good. Even if there were some decisions that were more good than others, it would not be freewill. Freewill is the right to chose one’s own destiny from any number of possibilities, not just good ones.

It can also be argued that God allows natural evils that allow freewill to exist. Richard Swinburne says that by allowing someone to have a disease, someone such as a doctor makes a choice of whether to quarantine that patient or to let others catch the disease. The moral decision is up to the doctor because he holds the knowledge of this disease. If not for the diagnosis of the disease, the patient could die or risk infecting others; however, it is not the doctor's fault if the person does not seek medical advice. The diseased person can go all through life carrying this disease, but if he does not seek someone with higher authority or expertise on the disease, then it was the person's decision to spread the disease. Freewill is used to make our decisions about evil. In this case, freewill laid in the hands of a diseased person, and by choosing not to seek out a higher authority, he chose to infect others. The disease is how evil develops and spreads, the choice of an individual. People thus learn how to do good and bad from those who have higher authority and knowledge on topics they do not know. Just like a disease, evil can be spread if one does not submit to the higher authority of God. Thus, the only person to blame for evil is one's own self (Swinburne 95).

According to traditional belief, God only handed out the handbook of how to live a good life. It is up to one’s own judgment to live that life or not. God is considered all good because he laid out the framework for what is good and what is evil. Humans made the choice to learn evil and their free will is what keeps evil existing in the world.

The choice is an individual choice. In order to change the existence of evil, each individual would have to have the same framework for what is good and evil. Since different societies have different religions and beliefs there are no set rules to what is morally right or wrong.

All this being said, Johnson’s argument fails because it neglects the fact that in order to have freewill, there must be a variety of choices, including evil choices. Johnson's argument also fails by stating that only a small amount of evil, no larger than a toothache, is needed to ensure moral urgency. Seemingly unnecessary evil, such as a baby burning to death in a fire, causes people to consider their actions more carefully, as well as make better choices, in accordance with the belief system that their particular ethical monotheistic religion dictates.

WORKS CITED
Johnson, B. C. “God and the Problem of Evil.” Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg et al. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.

Rowe, William L. “The Cosmological Argument.” Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg et al. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.
Swinburne, Richard. “Why God Allows Evil.” Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg et al. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.

 

[TheA10tion]

for people who believes there is GOD then GD IS REAL for those who are non-believers of course GOD did not exist!

many scientist and well known leaders are consider as ATHEIST!!

there are a lot of things which Science cannot EXPLAINED... so scientist rely on religion