Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (26 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
Answering questions with question 
On a forum such as this, I would never be able to convince you or anyone else. Rarely did someone become a believer through logical reasoning in the first place. People become believers through life's experiences.
I think believing that is absolute BS. If you truly believe that, then I'm not sure if you've thought through its implications thoroughly. It means that this god gave different accounts of his achievements to different people. If indeed all these gods are one, then why did the Christian god say that the world is about 5000 years old, while the Hindu god said its billions of years old? Why the difference in moral values? Why the intolerance towards other gods? Why did he deliberately divide us culturally with different religions and practices? Why did the Christian god say that you'll go to heaven or hell after you die, but the Hindu god says that you'll reincarnate? Why different creation myths?
This view simply raises more questions than it answers. It is simply senseless, illogical, and stupid.
This view simply raises more questions than it answers. It is simply senseless, illogical, and stupid.
Let's get this thing clear, I in no way believe that those books stories or whatever is in them is written by god or distributed by him throughout the world. They all are man made, that's why you have different books in different regions.
And about the content, you are again trying to figure out how, which in my view is not interesting at all or is considerably less interesting then why. And if you look into the why question more you will see a lot of similarities throuhgout all major and even not major religions of the world.
I'm no believer of some awesome Chuck Norris from the sky who plays some sort of board game with our world.
And about the content, you are again trying to figure out how, which in my view is not interesting at all or is considerably less interesting then why. And if you look into the why question more you will see a lot of similarities throuhgout all major and even not major religions of the world.
I'm no believer of some awesome Chuck Norris from the sky who plays some sort of board game with our world.
So if you believe that these books were written by men, then you must also believe that the concept of god was made up by men, right?
Also, this should also give you no reason to continue to have faith in god. Cos many of these books make it look like your faith, in the god they mention, will be rewarded by god after you die. But the truth is that there is no proof of faith being rewarded either in this life our the next. Or AT LEAST, any rewards of faith are unverifiable.
Also, this should also give you no reason to continue to have faith in god. Cos many of these books make it look like your faith, in the god they mention, will be rewarded by god after you die. But the truth is that there is no proof of faith being rewarded either in this life our the next. Or AT LEAST, any rewards of faith are unverifiable.
True to some extent, the concept we have in these books might be made by man we will never know or it might been that throughout generations of generations people have found something through their life expiriences and years of thoughts.
To me viewing world only through glasses of science is too limiting and is not enough, that's why I think there is something beyond. Science will never explain why and no matter how deep it gets it will get to the point where it will limit itself because it cannot answer other questions then how.
That's just how I feel if people find that science is enough for them its fine by me. Everyone finds their own way and if it gets them through life who am I to say that it's wrong and not true if I have no idea if it is true or not.
To me viewing world only through glasses of science is too limiting and is not enough, that's why I think there is something beyond. Science will never explain why and no matter how deep it gets it will get to the point where it will limit itself because it cannot answer other questions then how.
That's just how I feel if people find that science is enough for them its fine by me. Everyone finds their own way and if it gets them through life who am I to say that it's wrong and not true if I have no idea if it is true or not.
Thanks for a thoughtful answer and that you didn't neglect the question. To answer;
(1) Sounds more like you're talking about Hinduism, successfulness in the next (life) world. But he doesn't care about us, he doesn't need us yet he grants us a second life and criterias to reach it. If I'm assuming your thoughts right. Sounds like he needs to make up his mind and ponder about why he grants us a second life at all. I'm curious of the criterias but won't allow you to constitute them. For sure stealing etcetera isn't on my table because I don't find it necessiry yet for most people in the world this is a necessity to survive. I wonder how strong these criterias are otherwise a very few people during the past thousands and thousands of years ought to have reached "a successful life in the next world".
(2) I still believe that religion is based upon two things. A need to fulfill for the individual human. A need of reducing uncertainty's, unite people, create a context, have some basic principals for what is a decent behaviour to create a better atmosphere. I would however as I've written in other posts disregard all the empires and people who has done things in the name of God. Since nothing is in the name of God. Even if there is a God, as you said, he doesn't care about worshipping and so on. So anything said in his name world be in vain and any action would be wrongly taken. I'm exhousted about debating these matters with other people who critize religion because of "the things it has done" when everyone knows that it simply been a beneficial tool at the moment. Although some religion founded due to making money, like the mormons, are giving fuel to this debate. Perhaps you're right but I don't think I entirely agree.
(3) Your correction is accurate, I do agree that they are today and has been regarded as moral laws. Moral laws to guide in every day efforts. Don't steal, don't kill etc. However I still believe that they are based on the laws, laws that are more than 10 000 years old that has been passed from generation to generation of successful religions. Today, yes, they are moral laws that most civilizations have based their laws upon. During the past 10 000 years in practice I do think they have been, in practice, been used and seen as laws.
(4) Absolutely. Depends on which religion we're talking about but in general religion has been very good to humanity and the single person. As long as religion is open minded and ensures everyone is as much part of it as anyone else. I'm of course referring to the Pope and the old guys neglection of almost the entire world. This is however not religion's fault but a few conservative idiots taking advantage of power. Religion is built on a very few words, good words, that are for the better of everyone weather you're gay, black or white, or whatever. Hopefully people will continue to have this view. Hopefully people will start act like the intentions of some has been and not fear their God. Fear will only divide, not unite unless someone is looking to unite a few and divide the rest. In short, yes you're right. One has to distinguish between the intentions of religion and the intentions of those using it.
(1) Sounds more like you're talking about Hinduism, successfulness in the next (life) world. But he doesn't care about us, he doesn't need us yet he grants us a second life and criterias to reach it. If I'm assuming your thoughts right. Sounds like he needs to make up his mind and ponder about why he grants us a second life at all. I'm curious of the criterias but won't allow you to constitute them. For sure stealing etcetera isn't on my table because I don't find it necessiry yet for most people in the world this is a necessity to survive. I wonder how strong these criterias are otherwise a very few people during the past thousands and thousands of years ought to have reached "a successful life in the next world".
(2) I still believe that religion is based upon two things. A need to fulfill for the individual human. A need of reducing uncertainty's, unite people, create a context, have some basic principals for what is a decent behaviour to create a better atmosphere. I would however as I've written in other posts disregard all the empires and people who has done things in the name of God. Since nothing is in the name of God. Even if there is a God, as you said, he doesn't care about worshipping and so on. So anything said in his name world be in vain and any action would be wrongly taken. I'm exhousted about debating these matters with other people who critize religion because of "the things it has done" when everyone knows that it simply been a beneficial tool at the moment. Although some religion founded due to making money, like the mormons, are giving fuel to this debate. Perhaps you're right but I don't think I entirely agree.
(3) Your correction is accurate, I do agree that they are today and has been regarded as moral laws. Moral laws to guide in every day efforts. Don't steal, don't kill etc. However I still believe that they are based on the laws, laws that are more than 10 000 years old that has been passed from generation to generation of successful religions. Today, yes, they are moral laws that most civilizations have based their laws upon. During the past 10 000 years in practice I do think they have been, in practice, been used and seen as laws.
(4) Absolutely. Depends on which religion we're talking about but in general religion has been very good to humanity and the single person. As long as religion is open minded and ensures everyone is as much part of it as anyone else. I'm of course referring to the Pope and the old guys neglection of almost the entire world. This is however not religion's fault but a few conservative idiots taking advantage of power. Religion is built on a very few words, good words, that are for the better of everyone weather you're gay, black or white, or whatever. Hopefully people will continue to have this view. Hopefully people will start act like the intentions of some has been and not fear their God. Fear will only divide, not unite unless someone is looking to unite a few and divide the rest. In short, yes you're right. One has to distinguish between the intentions of religion and the intentions of those using it.
I don't expect god to give me any answers or shortcuts, I have to find them myself. Actually I don't expect nothing from this god as I think god doesn't expect anything from me(to simply say he doesn't care at least in human perseption of care(feelings))
I just think it's there, I have no idea why he is there I just have this feeling thats all.
I just think it's there, I have no idea why he is there I just have this feeling thats all.