Does God Exist?

[mikebatty]

My point was that even some historical legends can contain an element of truth.

 

Much of what has been said so far has been about belief and yes , most of folk lore is about belief and what you say may be born out of some element of truth or of experience . However , belief can be disproved by tangible evidence . For example , it was believed that the world was flat and that if you sailed to the edge you would fall off . Or , that the moon was made of green cheese . These

"beliefs " have since been disproved .

Religion is a " faith ". It is a faith that good will triumph over evil . Most , if not all , are able to see what is there in front of them - the beauty of creation - be it in life or in nature . None the less , my faith is that it was created by something far greater than man .

Be that something far greater than man be the " big bang " or whatever else you wish to call it , man is still trying to seek a solution to his " theory " . That however , does not detract from the " faith" which the bible seeks to teach man about the love and respect for our fellow beings , or indeed for the planet as a whole .

Whilst trying to resolve his desire to progress , man should keep in mind the basic fundamental teachings of the bible ,that is that " love and respect ". I don't think that my " faith " in that is displaced or indeed ,a legendary myth.

" Faith " is something which is born from within and can not be disproved .

" Belief " is something from without . It can stand a test and be disproved .

[janie48]

Much of what has been said so far has been about belief and yes , most of folk lore is about belief and what you say may be born out of some element of truth or of experience . However , belief can be disproved by tangible evidence . For example , it was believed that the world was flat and that if you sailed to the edge you would fall off . Or , that the moon was made of green cheese . These

"beliefs " have since been disproved .

Religion is a " faith ". It is a faith that good will triumph over evil . Most , if not all , are able to see what is there in front of them - the beauty of creation - be it in life or in nature . None the less , my faith is that it was created by something far greater than man .

Be that something far greater than man be the " big bang " or whatever else you wish to call it , man is still trying to seek a solution to his " theory " . That however , does not detract from the " faith" which the bible seeks to teach man about the love and respect for our fellow beings , or indeed for the planet as a whole .

Whilst trying to resolve his desire to progress , man should keep in mind the basic fundamental teachings of the bible ,that is that " love and respect ". I don't think that my " faith " in that is displaced or indeed ,a legendary myth.

" Faith " is something which is born from within and can not be disproved .

" Belief " is something from without . It can stand a test and be disproved .

Yes well I do have faith, but I need to have a source for that faith.

For me that source comes from the NT in the bible, even with its metaphors and parts of it I don't fully understand.

Having that faith doesn't have to mean, I have to accept all Christian religious authority, without question. I can be satisfied its there, willing to be instructed and guided by it to a degree but ultimately I have to discover for myself whether I choose to live by its rules of discipline.

[woolyhead]

The big weaknes with the atheist point of view is that it states a negative and negatives can be disproved very easily by finding just one positive bit of contradictory vidence. Of course these things depend on what meanings are attached to the words used, like I said in my first post. So since nobody can offer a definition of what they mean by this God that doesn't exist, I think the discussion is void and without meaning. My bit of positive evidence is in my head. QED

[SnailyBoy]

The big weaknes with the atheist point of view is that it states a negative and negatives can be disproved very easily by finding just one positive bit of contradictory vidence. Of course these things depend on what meanings are attached to the words used, like I said in my first post. So since nobody can offer a definition of what they mean by this God that doesn't exist, I think the discussion is void and without meaning. My bit of positive evidence is in my head. QED

 

Wow, you should present that in a paper to the Nobel Committee.

[mikebatty]

Yes well I do have faith, but I need to have a source for that faith.

For me that source comes from the NT in the bible, even with its metaphors and parts of it I don't fully understand.

Having that faith doesn't have to mean, I have to accept all Christian religious authority, without question. I can be satisfied its there, willing to be instructed and guided by it to a degree but ultimately I have to discover for myself whether I choose to live by its rules of discipline.

 

I would not disagree with one single point which you make.

All of what the New Testament teaches us is about the good which God bestows upon us and in return , how we should follow that teaching as an inspiration .

The Old Testament , in contrast tells us about the terror and pain which he subjects his people to. How can any reasonable person equate the two conflicting texts with the same God .

In the olden days the vast majority of people could hardly read or write ,let alone understand the parables in which that text was written . I do not have any doubts that religions , and I do not exclude my own from my comments , used the "fear of God " in order to control and subjugate the masses . Even to the extent of inflicting " yes" physical and sexual abuse upon the vulnerable of their flock.

Having said all that , they were human beings , and all to often , we human beings continue to inflict physical , sexual and psychological pressure upon people for our own advantages . But that is not God .

There are publications which help to give some understanding between the parables of the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament . One that comes to mind is "The Bible explained " , published by the Catholic Truth Society . And , before anyone comments that it will be a book of indoctrination , it gives a very broad comparison for people to understand .

[flamingjimmy]

The big weaknes with the atheist point of view is that it states a negative

Not is does not, it is refutation of a positive assertion, not a statement of a negative one.

 

and negatives can be disproved very easily by finding just one positive bit of contradictory vidence.

Anything can be disproved by finding contradictory evidence.

[RootsBooster]

The big weaknes with the atheist point of view is that it states a negative and negatives can be disproved very easily by finding just one positive bit of contradictory vidence. Of course these things depend on what meanings are attached to the words used, like I said in my first post. So since nobody can offer a definition of what they mean by this God that doesn't exist, I think the discussion is void and without meaning. My bit of positive evidence is in my head. QED

 

Okay, I'm an atheist, what is the negative that my position states?

[flamingjimmy]

I would not disagree with one single point which you make.

All of what the New Testament teaches us is about the good which God bestows upon us and in return , how we should follow that teaching as an inspiration .

The Old Testament , in contrast tells us about the terror and pain which he subjects his people to. How can any reasonable person equate the two conflicting texts with the same God .

It's called cognitive dissonance, and pretty much every member of our species is very capable of it.

 

Besides, your boy Jesus had no problem seeing them as the same god.

 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

 

Are you really comfortable as a Christian making a conclusion that Jesus himself explicitly disagreed with?

 

He clearly thought that Moses (who commited genocide at Gods command on several occasions) and the other prophets in the old testament really were doing God's work.

 

In the olden days the vast majority of people could hardly read or write ,let alone understand the parables in which that text was written . I do not have any doubts that religions , and I do not exclude my own from my comments , used the "fear of God " in order to control and subjugate the masses . Even to the extent of inflicting " yes" physical and sexual abuse upon the vulnerable of their flock.

Having said all that , they were human beings , and all to often , we human beings continue to inflict physical , sexual and psychological pressure upon people for our own advantages . But that is not God .

There are publications which help to give some understanding between the parables of the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament . One that comes to mind is "The Bible explained " , published by the Catholic Truth Society . And , before anyone comments that it will be a book of indoctrination , it gives a very broad comparison for people to understand .

Oh yeah, we can totally trust an organisation set up entirely to promote Catholicism to be unbiased, that's not absurd at all.

[Hairyloon]

Of course these things depend on what meanings are attached to the words used, like I said in my first post. So since nobody can offer a definition of what they mean by this God that doesn't exist, I think the discussion is void and without meaning.

The usual atheist definition is that God is omniscient, omnipotent and all loving.

They then argue that it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent;

and that an all loving, omnipotent being could not allow all the suffering that goes on.

Therefore God cannot exist.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

The logic cannot be faulted: an omniscient, omnipotent, all loving god does not exist.

But what of a being that falls short of omnipotent? Could they not qualify as God... or a god?

I believe Odin has been mentioned here already. He's a chap with an impressive set of abilities, but a long way off omnipotent.

If he exists, is he not a god?

I'm not going to tell him otherwise.

[flamingjimmy]

The usual atheist definition is that God is omniscient, omnipotent and all loving.

They then argue that it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent;

and that an all loving, omnipotent being could not allow all the suffering that goes on.

Therefore God cannot exist.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

The logic cannot be faulted: an omniscient, omnipotent, all loving god does not exist.

But what of a being that falls short of omnipotent? Could they not qualify as God... or a god?

 

Hey, it is not an 'atheist definition', it is the official teaching of the catholic church.