Is there a GOD?

[Sdajii]

Sdajii - I simply disagree with your opinion that celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin and I asked for references that prove that it is.

You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine and I am entitled to ask what evidence you have to support your beliefs just as others have asked me what evidence I have to support mine.

The only thing lacking was reference to specific bible verses which point out that god is jealous and that observing the customs of other belief systems is a severe sin. Surely you do not require me to give that to you, and if you do, you are a very poor Christian, and as a Christian I suggest you read your bible. The bible contains no shortage of such messages and if you are not familiar with that you clearly have extremely little knowledge of the bible, perhaps limited to a few verses here and there you have been pointed to or listened to at church or Sunday school, as is typically the case. It seems astounding that few Christians have read even 5% of the bible, and the low percentage they have been exposed to is the fluffy, nice side of the book. When I was in my early teens I figured that since I lived in an officially Christian country I should have a familiarity with the bible to understand the culture I lived in, so I read it, despite never having been a Christian myself. It always astounds me when Christians who claim that their beliefs are the most important thing in their life have never even read their own holy book.

 

[bulldoza]

..... There is as others have said above lots of evidence the scriptures have been made up as they have gone along to keep everthing dandy in order to control the believers.

A big reason why many of us are believers no more.

And yes, here appears that word 'evidence', which there is for both sides of the question "Is there a god?" or for any matter relating to it - and since none of this 'evidence' provides 'hard conclusive proof" for the existence or non-existence of God this debate will go on forever until the Second Coming imo.

 

[bulldoza]

It seems astounding that few Christians have read even 5% of the bible, and the low percentage they have been exposed to is the fluffy, nice side of the book. When I was in my early teens I figured that since I lived in an officially Christian country I should have a familiarity with the bible to understand the culture I lived in, so I read it, despite never having been a Christian myself. It always astounds me when Christians who claim that their beliefs are the most important thing in their life have never even read their own holy book.

You can take this however you like - I have read all of the New Testament (which is only a small portion of the whole Bible) and a large portion of the Old Testament.

 

[explod]

And yes, here appears that word 'evidence', which there is for both sides of the question "Is there a god?" or for any matter relating to it - and since none of this 'evidence' provides 'hard conclusive proof" for the existence or non-existence of God this debate will go on forever until the Second Coming imo.

Rubbish, there is no evidence that God exists at all, you have only expressed knowledge that you have learned or read and felt within yourself, that is not evidence they are feelings and belief. And of course there is no hard evidence that he does. But on the ballance of probabilities from my own equiries, it is very unlikely and remote. Like fairies aT the bottom of the garden, which are LIES

 

[bulldoza]

Rubbish, there is no evidence that God exists at all, you have only expressed knowledge that you have learned or read and felt within yourself, that is not evidence they are feelings and belief. And of course there is no hard evidence that he does. But on the ballance of probabilities from my own equiries, it is very unlikely and remote. Like fairies aT the bottom of the garden, which are LIES

I disagree - the Bible and my experiences throughout my life provide me with sufficient evidence to convince me that God exists.

I assume you are not speaking on my behalf in your quote above.

I think we are now up to about lap 2548 on the circle of 'yes he exists / no he doesn't.'

 

[explod]

Would someone kindly tell me I am wasting my time so that I can save myself and leave this thread.

However evidence is a question worth examination. In my career traning I was taught that evidence had to stand up to certain tests to be evidence You had to see it or it had to speak for itself. What someone told you, or something that is written, is called secondary evidence, but this is not evidence that will support a case, unless it is supported by some other tangible evidence.

I am sure others with an actual law backgound or that in philosophy can provide a clearer definition.

The bible I contend, was written by some powerful control freak and his workers. In fact news out of the US suggests the the helleluiahs are re-doing the creationst thingo to fit in with contemporary situations today as we speak.

 

[Mr J]

I disagree - the Bible and my experiences throughout my life provide me with sufficient evidence to convince me that God exists.

I'm not sure why you put so much faith in the bible. As for experiences in life, I highly doubt they're proof. They may be enough to convince you, but many people have many experiences that convince them of things that aren't necessarily true. Variance makes for some very strange events, but because most humans don't seem to understand variance very well, we come up with neat answers that make us happy.

Example, when explaining someone's death: "It was God's plan". Are you kidding me? When someone wins something "I'd like to thank God for making me great". Why not your parents for passing on good genes, a fortunate environment and turn of events? And to throw some balance in since I'm not just addressing religion, how about "online poker is rigged", or "the flow" of cards at a blackjack table, or the "markets are manipulated" when a trader loses?

We come up with all sorts of excuses, the biggest of all being "gods". It doesn't mean they don't exist, but when we examine the accuracy of our typical uninformed excuses/explanations (such as the gambling ones I mentioned) and think of their consistency with our explanation for gods, it doesn't look promising.

 

[wayneL]

Would someone kindly tell me I am wasting my time so that I can save myself and leave this thread.

However evidence is a question worth examination. In my career traning I was taught that evidence had to stand up to certain tests to be evidence You had to see it or it had to speak for itself.

Haven't you ever fabricated evidence?

 

[explod]

Haven't you ever fabricated evidence?

Well done ole Pal, got me big that time. But as an ole plod had to keep it simple stupid, bit like the trading, or I would be in trouble. The other way needs a lot on the uptake, but I suppose its a start if I get it waynel.

And in that you have answered my call 2 posts back and saved me.

cheers explod

 

[bulldoza]

explod -

In general, 'evidence' for me is something that provides a ground for belief or something that tends to prove or disprove something.

Once you have a piece of evidence, the next step imo is to judge the accuracy and reliability of that evidence. In a law context, the evidence presented by the police is judged by a jury, magistrate, judge or whatever.

In a 'spiritual' sense, at the risk of repeating myself, the Bible and my life experiences provide me personally with sufficient evidence and proof, again for me personally, that God exists.

Now all this is not to say, as I have commented before, that anyone else must blindly accept the Bible as evidence or proof that God exists as I have.

We all should make our own decision on whether to believe in God or not based on how we judge the evidence before us.

 

[explod]

In general, 'evidence' for me is something that provides a ground for belief or something that tends to prove or disprove something.

grounds for belief or tends to prove do not stand up to the test of the evidence rules.

To get the average joe to believe in God today you would have to produce him before thier eyes or you would have to part the water before the eyes. Direct, first evidence.

It is my view that iit was because people of the past were not educated to think for themselves that religions thrived. That is happenning again due to poverty and growing lack of ducational opportunities. In my day there were no fees to go to Uni., so I suppose we only have ourselves overall to blame cause we vote em in.

 

[derty]

Thanks Derty- fantastic post. I don't profess to understand the mathematical models involved in Superstring theory (despite studying pure maths and nuclear science amongst other things at uni!). I guess my reason for considering God necessary in my own belief system stemmed partly from my observations that many assumptions are made in both maths and nuclear science. As logical as many of the assumptions appear to be, I felt that there was always a need to believe in things that couldn't be explained. Taking an example you brought up- atomic particles, atoms and molecules have an affinity with one another. I guess where we might differ is that I'm unable to rest with the notion that they just do possess this inherent affinity, that energy creates orderly behaviour for no reason other than it does. You're right in saying we don't need a belief in God to help us in scientific research, but for me God doesn't complicate the issue.

As for a higher purpose in our lives, I guess I do believe that there's more to it than existing if that's what you're referring to. Otherwise I'm not sure why we are built with such a passion for knowledge and a sense of who we are- why we feel the need to expend energy on things beyond matters of survival.

Thanks again for your comments

No problems Hedders. Though, if I had've known you had done tertiary level pure maths and nuclear science I would not have spent as much time in my explanations. You should in fact be giving the explanation.

Out of curiosity, were you a believer before you went to Uni and the assumptions within the science were the only places left for God to have any possible role? Or did the fact that assumptions were required disillusion your view of the science and you reasoned that a higher power was required to make it make sense?

When you start asking why is a quark a quark and why does it interact in specific ways? Why are the fundamental parameters of the universe as such? Why is matter so ordered on so many levels? For some a creator is required for it to make sense. For me, while it totally amazes me and is boggling, it is another facet of science that is waiting for an explanation. I am happy to wait and are happy not to know for now.

As for life requiring a meaning. Life does what life does, it replicates and changes within the boundaries that the universe and the local environment allow it to. On Earth, within these bounds it has attained some amazing feats, humans not being the least of these. Life on Earth has now reached a level where it can contemplate why and how it arose. The contemplation is an evolution in itself with religion being a part of that journey. As part of that evolution science has begun to fret away at the role religion plays in that contemplation. That breaking down of a requirement of a creator has accelerated and advanced to a degree now that a creator is not required to explain our origins. The concept of a creator is now a redundant part of our ongoing contemplation of origins.

I think the question should not be Is there a God?
It should be Is a God Necessary?

 

[bulldoza]

grounds for belief or tends to prove do not stand up to the test of the evidence rules.

To get the average joe to believe in God today you would have to produce him before thier eyes or you would have to part the water before the eyes. Direct, first evidence.

It is my view that iit was because people of the past were not educated to think for themselves that religions thrived. That is happenning again due to poverty and growing lack of ducational opportunities. In my day there were no fees to go to Uni., so I suppose we only have ourselves overall to blame cause we vote em in.

I believe the definition of evidence is correct. What you are then implying, and I agree in general, is that many would need very strong compelling evidence before accepting the case being put forward as prooved. You are essentially reinforcing my comments earlier today about degrees of proof or evidence.

I agree with you, based on what I have read in here, that most non-believers in here would require some sort of 'road to Damascus' moment or for God to part the Pacific Ocean so they can walk from Sydney to LA before they will accept God exists.

I have commented earlier on why I believe God does not provide us with such 'hard evidence'.

In my particular case, I am convinced God exists based on the evidence at my disposal.

 

[Mr J]

I think the question should not be Is there a God?
It should be Is a God Necessary?

I think either question leads to the same place. Questioning existence naturally questions necessity, and questioning necessity will very likely lead to questioning existence.

 

[wayneL]

Perhaps a better question is - Is religion necessary?

IMNTBCHO => Nope

 

[bulldoza]

I think the question should not be Is there a God?
It should be Is a God Necessary?

Imo another very valid question but not necessarily appropriate for this thread.

More appropriate in a thread of its own imo.

Just because something is necessary doesn't mean it already exists and just because something exists doesn't mean its required.

eg.. we need a better hospital system but it doesn't exist.....yet!!!

 

[explod]

I have commented earlier on why I believe God does not provide us with such 'hard evidence'.

.

Yes read it and of course knew of it. But how wonderfully convienient, I bet the Bishop gave the curate a bonus sip of wine the day he came up with that one.

 

[bulldoza]

Poll Summary Update​

Just a quck update on yesterday's poll summary since a few more votes have been cast.

As yesterday, I have split the 'fence sitters' 50/50 between believers and non-believers - and please don't jump on me regarding the split.

You can massage the numbers as you like and polls in this type of environment are imo basically more for fun than for any statistical credibility.

Believers + possibles: 149 + 123 = 272 (49%)

Non-believers + possibles: 158 + 124 = 282 (51%)

 

[Julia]

Bulldoza, you have made 55 posts in just a few days, all about God. You have been astonishingly persistent in the repetitive nature of these posts.

Something has been ringing a bell at the back of my mind here. I have finally woken up to what it is. Here we have Bullmarket back again after being banned about three years ago.

You know what really gave you away? The use of the phrase "I'll pop in tomorrow".
No young website designer would use that expression, and it was an absolute favourite of Bullmarket's.

Up to Joe, of course, but I'd hope other ASF members will stop feeding this troll.

 

[professor_frink]

Bulldoza, you have made 55 posts in just a few days, all about God. You have been astonishingly persistent in the repetitive nature of these posts.

Something has been ringing a bell at the back of my mind here. I have finally woken up to what it is. Here we have Bullmarket back again after being banned about three years ago.

You know what really gave you away? The use of the phrase "I'll pop in tomorrow".
No young website designer would use that expression, and it was an absolute favourite of Bullmarket's.

Up to Joe, of course, but I'd hope other ASF members will stop feeding this troll.

troll has been sent packing Julia