What is your god like? (13 Viewers)

[Hist]

At least he believed that there must have been a higher power, instead of suggesting the universe came out of nothing..

Atheism suggests the world came out of nothing.
Theism suggests God came out of nothing.
Both are equally illogical and both are impossible to prove/disprove.
Agnostics claim they do not know and assert that they cannot know. so they hold the middle ground.

So theists are as bad as atheists.. both claim unattainable knowledge...
Following the principles of causality, every cause is an effect of another cause, which in turn is also an effect of another cause and so on until we reach the conclusion:
- We fall in an infinite regress of causes and effects and thus think that either:
1) The world is eternal i.e. never started never will end.
2) The world is an effect of a cause (God) that never started and will never end.

Either way you assert that something is eternal either it is the world or it is God.
Atheists claim to know (1) while theists claim to know (2)...
Agnostics assert that they cannot know which is true and which is not however,
some agnostics lean towards atheism out of discontent with the teachings of the dominant religion of the area that claim they are inspired by God (Islam if you are middle eastern, Christianity if you are european etc.)
So usually agnostics tend to be more like atheists as they are unimpressed by the religions and they tend to think if there was a god and he'd send someone or teach something it should have been a hell lot better than that.
Other agnostics stick to a religion they are used to and rarely perform any rituals or anything just to be on the safe side, which according to scriptures of religion is not enough.

anyway fuck inter

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

Atheism suggests the world came out of nothing.
Theism suggests God came out of nothing.
Both are equally illogical and both are impossible to prove/disprove.
Agnostics claim they do not know and assert that they cannot know. so they hold the middle ground.

So theists are as bad as atheists.. both claim unattainable knowledge...
Following the principles of causality, every cause is an effect of another cause, which in turn is also an effect of another cause and so on until we reach the conclusion:
- We fall in an infinite regress of causes and effects and thus think that either:
1) The world is eternal i.e. never started never will end.
2) The world is an effect of a cause (God) that never started and will never end.

Either way you assert that something is eternal either it is the world or it is God.
Atheists claim to know (1) while theists claim to know (2)...
Agnostics assert that they cannot know which is true and which is not however,
some agnostics lean towards atheism out of discontent with the teachings of the dominant religion of the area that claim they are inspired by God (Islam if you are middle eastern, Christianity if you are european etc.)
So usually agnostics tend to be more like atheists as they are unimpressed by the religions and they tend to think if there was a god and he'd send someone or teach something it should have been a hell lot better than that.
Other agnostics stick to a religion they are used to and rarely perform any rituals or anything just to be on the safe side, which according to scriptures of religion is not enough.

anyway fuck inter

Well said.

However, I think you may have somewhat misunderstood the theistic argument and exactly what I meant in my post. It has virtually been accepted in the scientific world that the universe did have a beggining some 14 billion years ago, and theories such as parallel universes, the steady state theory, and many others have been dismissed.

Thus, we now know that the universe did come to a beggining, meaning that the dimensions of space and time also had a beggining. Now, this is where the atheistic perspective seems logically fallable to me. Since the universe had a starting point, it seems rather ridiculous to suggest that it came(started, began to exist) out of nothing. It is rational to conclude that there was a cause for the Big Bang, and more reasonablly, a supernatural force that exists outside the realms of space and time.

When I say supernatural force, I am not referring to the Abrahimic God per se, but rather a God. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe.

I admit that the nature of this God is debatable, even as a Christian I find it highly presumptious and unintelligible of me to claim that this God is the one described in the Bible. I will not do that. But I will remain skeptical on the validity of the atheistic argument. It takes a huge leap of faith to be an atheist, which is extremely ironic considering the foundations of atheism.



And fuck Inter.

 

[swag]

I don't know about you guys, but I've always been here.

 

[Hist]

Yup.. shifty is where i am too.

Well said.

However, I think you may have somewhat misunderstood the theistic argument and exactly what I meant in my post. It has virtually been accepted in the scientific world that the universe did have a beggining some 14 billion years ago, and theories such as parallel universes, the steady state theory, and many others have been dismissed.

Thus, we now know that the universe did come to a beggining, meaning that the dimensions of space and time also had a beggining. Now, this is where the atheistic perspective seems logically fallable to me. Since the universe had a starting point, it seems rather ridiculous to suggest that it came(started, began to exist) out of nothing. It is rational to conclude that there was a cause for the Big Bang, and more reasonablly, a supernatural force that exists outside the realms of space and time.

When I say supernatural force, I am not referring to the Abrahimic God per se, but rather a God. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe.

I admit that the nature of this God is debatable, even as a Christian I find it highly presumptious and unintelligible of me to claim that this God is the one described in the Bible. I will not do that. But I will remain skeptical on the validity of the atheistic argument. It takes a huge leap of faith to be an atheist, which is extremely ironic considering the foundations of atheism.



And fuck Inter.

But again If something was before the Big bang then it too breaks the principle of causality..
I mean, assuming that what scientists say is true (which is highly debatable)
Then replace the world God with Big bang and you end up in the same regress.
Let me try to illustrate:
If God created the Big Bang then God becomes the object which nothing comes before it. i.e. the start.
If God didnt exist, then the Big Bang Would be the object which nothing comes before it. i.e. the start.

ask these questions and this is what each would reply1) Theist (2) Atheist
(1)
Who started the Big Bang? God
Who started God? No one

(2)
Who started the Big Bang? No one


========================================
Regardless of whether there is a start or not adding GOD to it is never a necessity. If the big bang cant happen unless someone makes it happen why don't you say the same about God? why is he excused?

The Theists make one exception to the rules of causality which is God.
The Atheists make one exception too to the rules which is the Big Bang (or whatever)

Either way there is no way to know whether the actual exception is God or a mere explosion of atoms. Both (theists and Atheists) have unverifiable faith in the way things started but the theists choose to worship that cause and claim to receive messages from him, while the atheists tend to think of that cause as just an explosion or anything other than a supreme overlord etc.


"It takes a huge leap of faith to be an atheist, which is extremely ironic considering the foundations of atheism. " ==> Very True, but for both atheists and theists..
and thats why there are the agnostic view.
Personally, i am agnostic for that reason. my religion is doing the right thing regardless of what some books or prophets etc tells me what to do..
I judge using my own mind and i act out of my free will. Why should I be virtuous? for two reasons.
1) I don't know if God exists or not and so if he does then i am on his good side (even though scripture would say thats not enough but i think thats my best and that is what an infinitely just entity would do) If not then for the second reason.

2) We don't live on our own, people live together and TOLERANCE is the most important virtue of all. Morality has been created and adjusted and debated throughout time to find the best ways by which we can all live together with minimum casualties. (not because we should be the image of a deity, at least for me).

 

[Seven]

At least he believed that there must have been a higher power, instead of suggesting the universe came out of nothing..

A higher power only postpones the problem. There must have been something before the higher power as well.

The way I see it at one point there is nothing. This situation of nothingness is there until something comes along. And something WILL come along, if you wait long enough. You have eternity after all.

 

[Hist]

A higher power only postpones the problem. There must have been something before the higher power as well.

Exactly, there is no necessity here. well that doesnt mean he doesnt exist but it doesn't mean he does either... so this approach brings you to a dead end. you cannot know if that very first thing is as unimportant as an amoeba or as great as God.
The statement: God is the only cause that is not an effect.
is equally impossible like
the statement: The big bang is the only cause that is not an effect.
So either way, you have to take a leap of faith or be an agnostic.

I respect theists who admit that faith is unfounded by reason... but then which faith would you actually believe in? Islam? Christianity? Judaism?
why one and not the other?
you cannot choose using reason as we showed above. Its just a Russian roulette
game.. its gamble... you choose one (usually according to where you are born at) and you wish for the best.
I would love to talk to convert, a man who left christianity to islam or Vice versa.. i would love to see how he managed to say that one leap of faith is more true than the other.

 

[rounder]

A higher power only postpones the problem. There must have been something before the higher power as well.

The way I see it at one point there is nothing. This situation of nothingness is there until something comes along. And something WILL come along, if you wait long enough. You have eternity after all.

Exactly, there is no necessity here. well that doesnt mean he doesnt exist but it doesn't mean he does either... so this approach brings you to a dead end. you cannot know if that very first thing is as unimportant as an amoeba or as great as God.
The statement: God is the only cause that is not an effect.
is equally impossible like
the statement: The big bang is the only cause that is not an effect.
So either way, you have to take a leap of faith or be an agnostic.

I respect theists who admit that faith is unfounded by reason... but then which faith would you actually believe in? Islam? Christianity? Judaism?
why one and not the other?
you cannot choose using reason as we showed above. Its just a Russian roulette
game.. its gamble... you choose one (usually according to where you are born at) and you wish for the best.
I would love to talk to convert, a man who left christianity to islam or Vice versa.. i would love to see how he managed to say that one leap of faith is more true than the other.

About the Big Bang. The reason theists exclude God from Causality is beacause God is supernatural. The Casaulity principle states that for anything in the natural world to come into being, it must have had a cause. However, the dilema here is that you would eventually trace back to the cause in the natural world,the Big Bang.

Therefore, we can infer that a transcendent force caused the big bang. Let me take a second to define what I mean when I say, a supernatural force or God.

God is supernatural, thus does not abide by the rules of nature, God is limitless, and timeless, God is anywhere and everywhere. Now, to be able to justify the occurence of the Big Bang, it is not farfetched to say that a cause outside the limits of space and time triggered this event to happen.

The Big Bang is part of nature, God is not. Therefore, the former must abide by the principle of Causality while the latter does not. Again, I am inisisting that there exists supernatural implications, not neccesarily theistic implications. I am not insisting that this supernatural force is the God described in the Bible or Quaran.

 

[Hist]

About the Big Bang. The reason theists exclude God from Causality is beacause God is supernatural. The Casaulity principle states that for anything in the natural world to come into being, it must have had a cause. However, the dilema here is that you would eventually trace back to the cause in the natural world,the Big Bang.

Therefore, we can infer that a transcendent force caused the big bang. Let me take a second to define what I mean when I say, a supernatural force or God.

God is supernatural, thus does not abide by the rules of nature, God is limitless, and timeless, God is anywhere and everywhere. Now, to be able to justify the occurence of the Big Bang, it is not farfetched to say that a cause outside the limits of space and time triggered this event to happen.

The Big Bang is part of nature, God is not. Therefore, the former must abide by the principle of Causality while the latter does not. Again, I am inisisting that there exists supernatural implications, not neccesarily theistic implications. I am not insisting that this supernatural force is the God described in the Bible or Quaran.

That is a nice point, but again what we have access to and can potentially know is only limited to the natural world. Anything supernatural as you have clearly mentioned is unknowable, unthinkable, insensible etc... why then do we add God to the equation? based on what, if reason cannot apply? How can you objectively show that God exists if even saying anything about him is inaccurate because it'd always be natural?
that is the whole problem with atheists regarding the existence of God.
You cant say that based on reason i can know that God exists and then say nothing about God can be known... This is a self defeating argument.(Let alone if a book tries to describe what he's like).. You have to take a leap of faith to believe in the existence of a supernatural entity that by definition humans cannot even think of let alone know.

You cant prove he exists and you cant prove he doesn't. Its sad and ugly but i don't see a way out of it.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

When exactly did I call him religious?

people

 

[DelpieroForLife]

@Seven

1) You think Allah is the smallest => You think Allah exist.

2) You claim at every possible chance that Allah doesn't exist.

1 + 2 => You are dumb.

 

[Seven]

Why don't you understand that 1) is a joke?

 

[DelpieroForLife]

Why don't you understand that 1) is a joke?

Nothing is wrong with 1... 7 is the real joke.

 

[BarkuZ-yes i am an ass]

1: Hrvatska Kuna....god of my homeland:

2: Euro € .... god of my continent:

3: Puond.... god opf the island part od continent:

4: Dollar.....god of rest of the world....

I respect them all every day...... long live god's

 

[Hist]

@Seven

1) You think Allah is the smallest => You think Allah exist.

2) You claim at every possible chance that Allah doesn't exist.

1 + 2 => You are dumb.

completely out of context

 

[DelpieroForLife]

That is a nice point, but again what we have access to and can potentially know is only limited to the natural world. Anything supernatural as you have clearly mentioned is unknowable, unthinkable, insensible etc... why then do we add God to the equation? based on what, if reason cannot apply? How can you objectively show that God exists if even saying anything about him is inaccurate because it'd always be natural?
that is the whole problem with atheists regarding the existence of God.
You cant say that based on reason i can know that God exists and then say nothing about God can be known... This is a self defeating argument.(Let alone if a book tries to describe what he's like).. You have to take a leap of faith to believe in the existence of a supernatural entity that by definition humans cannot even think of let alone know.

You cant prove he exists and you cant prove he doesn't. Its sad and ugly but i don't see a way out of it.

Let me start with your last phrase which I pretty much agree with.

There is no way to prove God exist or to prove he doesn't.

That's exactly what God says according to Quran, God describe human mental ability as too limited to recognize the exact nature of God (which is true as we can never prove he exist and even if we assume he exist we can never recognize his nature).

Did you ever thought that maybe the missing piece of the picture is not the (Big Bang or God) it is just that human being mind has limitation to recognize the reasoning behind universe no matter if it is God or Big Bang?

 

[Seven]

Yes, so the Quran MUST be true .

Dear god, this shit is so retarded I can't even believe you just said that.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

1: Hrvatska Kuna....god of my homeland:

2: Euro € .... god of my continent:

3: Puond.... god opf the island part od continent:

4: Dollar.....god of rest of the world....

I respect them all every day...... long live god's

Then you're a slave to man.

 

[DelpieroForLife]

Yes, so the Quran MUST be true .

Dear god, this shit is so retarded I can't even believe you just said that.

Can you ever participate in a respectful/logical discussion for a change.

 

[Seven]

Can you ever participate in a respectful/logical discussion for a change.

LOGICAL? You want a LOGICAL discussion? Dear God, you have chosen the wrong path my friend.

Using the sentence "You can't prove God exists nor can you prove he doesn't" to prove God exists is NOT LOGIC. If this is the kind of reasoning you and the Quran come up with, you're both full of jelly beans.

 

[DelpieroForLife]

LOGICAL? You want a LOGICAL discussion? Dear God, you have chosen the wrong path my friend.

Using the sentence "You can't prove God exists nor can you prove he doesn't" to prove God exists is NOT LOGIC. If this is the kind of reasoning you and the Quran come up with, you're both full of jelly beans.

Did you even read my post or you just stopped where I mentioned Quran?

I didn't try to prove God exist as I know there is no way to prove such thing.

Here is what I've said, AGAIN.

Did you ever thought that maybe the missing piece of the picture is not the (Big Bang or God) it is just that human being mind has limitation to recognize the reasoning behind universe no matter if it is God or Big Bang?