Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[Ryedo40]

But where could I go to because God is everywhere ?

 

Teeny, what evidence do you have for that?

[teeny]

Teeny, what evidence do you have for that?

 

God is omnipresent which means he is everywhere , which means he is everywhere , he sees everything , we cannot go from his presence , the Bible tells us this and we can know his presence and have a relationship with him , which is one reason I would rather go to heaven , because I like the presence of God .

[carosio]

I'd tell 'em both where to stick it. Eternal existence would wear very thin after the first few thousand years, never mind the next several billion.jb

 

Especially if your still married to the same person!

[mjw47]

Yes, all atheists have an absence of belief in the existence of God.

 

 

 

So lack of knowledge/awareness of an actual God, inevitably resulting in an absence of belief in the existence of an actual God, is incompatible with being: a=without, gnostic=knowledge. OK mate. Anything you say.

 

Precisely all Atheists have an absence of belief in the existence of God(s).

 

However, They make no allowance for the possibility there may be such a being.

 

Because that would be contradictory to being an Atheist wouldn't it?

 

They have made their choice they don't believe in God(s) and are not prepared to allow for the possible existence of such a being.

 

Agnostics on the other hand basically say maybe there is, maybe there isn't a Creator, but in the absence of proof we have no way of knowing so choose to neither believe one unprovable theory nor the other.

 

So yes, claiming to be without knowledge of God and therefore choosing to believe there is no God is incompatible with Agnosticism, because Atheists have taken their lack of knowledge of one side of the argument to claim that it proves the other side wrong.

 

Agnostics admit that they have no knowledge of either side of the argument and therefore choose to believe neither.

 

Is this slowly dawning on you?

 

Have you managed to work out yet why three words with differing meanings are required to explain the three differing views?

[Ryedo40]

God is omnipresent which means he is everywhere , which means he is everywhere , he sees everything , we cannot go from his presence , the Bible tells us this and we can know his presence and have a relationship with him , which is one reason I would rather go to heaven , because I like the presence of God .

 

I know the meaning, but are you aware there are roughly 18 verses in the Bible where your God is obviously not omnipresent/omniscient - contradicting the few verses claiming your God is omnipresent/omniscient?

 

---------- Post added 16-01-2015 at 00:34 ----------

 

However, They make no allowance for the possibility there may be such a being.

 

I'll try and clarify a few things here: I'll use the term "actual God" - and assume it exists for the sake of discussion.

 

Atheists have no knowledge/awareness of "actual God" - resulting in the absence of belief in the existence of "actual God".

 

Such a being does not exist to an atheist: they have no knowledge/awareness of it, therefore they have an absence of belief in its existence. Absence of belief is all that is required to be an atheist.

 

Given their lack of knowledge/awareness of "actual God", many atheists, given the claims and being intellectually honest, make an allowance for the possibility that it may exist. However, until something convinces them that "actual God" exists, their lack of knowledge/awareness, as well as their absence of belief remains unchanged.

 

Such a being still does not exist to them: they have no knowledge/awareness of it, therefore they have an absence of belief in its existence.

 

Some atheists are willing to state "actual God" does not exist(to them, given their lack of knowledge/awareness of it, and resulting absence of belief, "actual God" doesn't exist).

 

Both instances - allowing a possibility or stating God does not exist - are secondary to atheism, not necessary for atheism.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Ryedo40

[Guest]

In such an vast universe, one with countless planets - each with their own unique environment and composition - it's likely at least one, the one we know of, would have the correct conditions for life to evolve. And that's where life would be. No reason to invoke a creator.

 

That's just an opinion/speculation and not based on any scientific study..unless you have evidence to support your view.

 

We only know the constants of our planet, and it has far too many coincidences to suggest it 'just happened to be like this'.

 

Why would this planet just have the correct conditions.

 

Yes life evolved on it, no one debates that, but it wouldn't have if all these laws were in place- and natural laws don't create anything.

 

Some from the scientific world (past and present) have commented on this subject- how our universe is so fined tuned or appears that it was prepared.

 

Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle:

 

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

 

Hoyle did not mean to argue in favor of divine intervention as an answer- he simpy made a comment based on what he observed..which overwhelmed him.

 

Another prominent scientist, Freeman Dyson, said:

 

"The more I examine the universe, and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming."

 

Rather than me having to add more similar views from the scientific world, I am not here to question their religious stance, but the argument here is our universe has been fine tuned and that itself needs explaining.

 

To say 'it just is' isn't an answer- nor do I support anyone who says 'we don't know so God did it'.

 

However I do support the rationalist who on observing the many constants (and there are a lot) of our planet, and deduces that these could not come about itself- because logic tells us complex things do not put themself together on their own.

 

I mean, you wouldn't expect some complex jigsaw puzzle (that was in a room locked and sealed) to all of a sudden have been put together perfectly- and say 'it just happened'.

 

So why say our universe 'just happens to be right for life'.

 

Chance and physical necessity don't explain the vast compexity of how this universe meets all the physical constant to permit life.

[RootsBooster]

You there, the atheist agnostic in the back...

Do you understand what a belief is?

 

It is a trust and confidence that something is true or will happen without positive proof.

...where's your source for this odd definition?

 

Your green apple analogy is completely ridiculous. The word was invented specifically to provide an alternative to Atheist and Theist.

...where's your source for this claim?

[carosio]

Why would this planet just have the correct conditions.

 

Some from the scientific world (past and present) have commented on this subject- how our universe is so fined tuned or appears that it was prepared.

 

So why say our universe 'just happens to be right for life'

Chance and physical necessity don't explain the vast compexity of how this universe meets all the physical constant to permit life.

 

The conditions on Earth have evolved very slowly to allow life (as we know it) to form as the planet cooled, and the process will continue into the far future, but not in our favour, until all life is extinct due to a dying Sun.

[Ryedo40]

We only know the constants of our planet, and it has far too many coincidences to suggest it 'just happened to be like this'.

 

Why would this planet just have the correct conditions.

 

If life is going to arise, it's going to arise somewhere where the conditions are suitable - not the 99.*% of planets where the conditions aren't suitable; or 99.9% of the Universe where the conditions aren't suitable(hardly fine-tuned for life). This planet, one out of billions, just happens to have those suitable conditions(Simple analogy here: billions of pebbles roll down a hill; it's likely one will land on the X or be X). So, if life is going to arise, that's where life will be. And not the 99.9...% of the Universe that is hostile to life. Our planet, while having conditions adequate enough for life to form and evolve to survive its environment, is also quite hostile to life(death and extinction due to environmental pressures is common.) It appears the universe isn't fine tuned for life, but life, where capable, struggles through: fine tuning itself to suit its environment.

 

Some from the scientific world (past and present) have commented on this subject- how our universe is so fined tuned or appears that it was prepared.

 

We can all quote scientists for and against. Victor J Stenger has wrote at length on the fallacy of fine tuning.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

 

Leonard Susskind "Instead of the fact that the Universe is somehow just perfect for life, the truth is that "it's not that the universe is somehow contorting itself to accommodate us; it's just a diverse place and we find ourselves in a friendly corner"

Edited January 16, 2015 by Ryedo40

[teeny]

I know the meaning, but are you aware there are roughly 18 verses in the Bible where your God is obviously not omnipresent/omniscient - contradicting the few verses claiming your God is omnipresent/omniscient?

 

where are they ? have you read them in the correct context of what is being said to you ?