Question about the Christian God

[Dies Mori]

True. That's why a legitimate religion will harmonize perfectly with science. Science should not say "God does not exist" if in fact He does. Science may not explicitly, in-your-face support God's existence, but it surely should not deny that existence if in fact God is real.

Science makes no grounds to state that its findings lead to the assumption there is no God; if there is a cited lack of evidence to place specific belief in something, there is no specific reason to even adress its probability, it's mere argument by incredulity.

EDIT: Fuck, I really should peruse over Crys' posts before quoting.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Memento Mori

[Naglfarslayer]

I see how this works.

Pardon my criticism these next few sentences...

Burden of proof seems to be a logical guideline to dismiss illogical, or totally off-the-wall ideas.

However this world-renowned doctrine can be used to eliminate any intangible concept, most commonly religion.

Therefore, those defending are forced to prove an existence that was not meant to be proven, while the prosecution sits back and throws out the same response and is deemed the 'victor.'

...There. I said it.

For example, complete omnipotence is entirely impossible, as there will always be some things you cannot do (eg, creating a rock you cannot lift, creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force, etc). And on and on and on.

This is what happens when you restrict the definition of a divine being to man's erred vocabulary. Using this same circular logic, one will find that no word can perfectly describe God.

[lolDeath]

Try "Godly"

[Defeatist Elitist]

I see how this works.

Pardon my criticism these next few sentences...

Burden of proof seems to be a logical guideline to dismiss illogical, or totally off-the-wall ideas.

However this world-renowned doctrine can be used to eliminate any intangible concept, most commonly religion.

Therefore, those defending are forced to prove an existence that was not meant to be proven, while the prosecution sits back and throws out the same response and is deemed the 'victor.'

...There. I said it.

This is what happens when you restrict the definition of a divine being to man's erred vocabulary. Using this same circular logic, one will find that no word can perfectly describe God.

Well that's kind of the point. It always comes down to "Well God just isn't governed by our reality" or "Well we just can't conceive of God", or something like that, which isn't a very good argument. At best its saying "God isn't really real", and at worst it's saying that we're all retarded.

[Naglfarslayer]

Try "Godly"

Ha! I'll give you that one.

Godly, as in having the attributes of a god.

But what exactly are the attributes of a god?

Omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. But wait, we already disproved the integrity of these words.

...See?

Well that's kind of the point. It always comes down to "Well God just isn't governed by our reality" or "Well we just can't conceive of God", or something like that, which isn't a very good argument. At best its saying "God isn't really real", and at worst it's saying that we're all retarded.

If it's not a good argument, then I suppose that makes the score even.

And if no one is making any progress, why discuss at all?

[lolDeath]

Ha! I'll give you that one.

Godly, as in having the attributes of a god.

But what exactly are the attributes of a god?

Omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. But wait, we already disproved the integrity of these words.

...See?

That really varies on a person-to-person basis.

[Defeatist Elitist]

If it's not a good argument, then I suppose that makes the score even.

And if no one is making any progress, why discuss at all?

I don't know if I'd call it even. As for not making any progress, the point is to help people understand.

[Dies Mori]

This is what happens when you restrict the definition of a divine being to man's erred vocabulary. Using this same circular logic, one will find that no word can perfectly describe God.

Ah yes, the id est "God is beyond human understanding and expression" angle of dispute. Personally, I always failed to see the point of worshipping or adhering to something beyond your comprehension or other than fear via tyrrany.

[California Mountain Snake]

Ha! I'll give you that one.

Godly, as in having the attributes of a god.

But what exactly are the attributes of a god?

Omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. But wait, we already disproved the integrity of these words.

...See?

Just what this forum needs, another condescending psudointellectual nimrod. "Sigh... not this again."? You haven't even been here a day. Shut the fuck up.

No one who knows what they're talking about says "Science proves that God doesn't exist." Humans cannot detect the existence of things which are noted for their conspicuous incorporeality, and passing the judgment on the existence of such things is also impossible. The point is that if you are going to claim that God EXISTS, then yeah you have to fucking prove it. If you want to prove he doesn't exist you have to prove it too. But when you say there is no evidence proving or disproving His existence, then no, you don't have to prove a Goddamn thing. There is no "bias" towards people who want to prove God's existence versus those who want to disprove it, there is simply a burden of proof which falls equally on both sides who want to make ANY claim about God's existence or lack thereof.

Edited July 15, 2009 by California Mountain Snake

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Please don't underestimate the intelligence of your audience and think you can get away with deliberately misleading shit like this.

I will admit the black hole was probably a bad example. However, keep in mind I was not referring to Steven Hawkings research, but the research/studies/w/e by the few in the 1800s when it was an impossibility by the standards of that time. "deliberately misleading shit like this" was unintentional.

As for all the other less direct issues. Ok, I hate to take this road, for fear of sounding like an idiot, but I guess I already did that several times, and I feel I should explain where exactly I am coming from so you may grasp a better understanding of why I think the way I do.

I once believed god did not exist because of everything you people have been saying (Yes I was indeed at one point a sane being like yourselves). As stated earlier, in what was a... difficult...part of my life at the time, I was witness to miracles (ZOMG I said it) that could not be explained. After that, I decided "Well fuck that, it seems the impossible can be possible, laws can be broken" and went with it. As I stated before I didn't become some dumb fuck (Or at least I hope not), throw science out the window, and take some book and live by it 100% and believe without a doubt everything it said in it.

No, that is retarded. But, I did allow my mind to open/revert/whatever you want to say, to the point where I may believe the impossible. Have I lost it? Perhaps, but what I have seen made me choose it. Tell me. If someone close to you is dying, and multiple doctors essentially say "Nothing can be done", and you resort to just trying the impossible, prayer, of all things, and then watch it work with no explanation. Tell me? What do you believe then?

It was enough evidence for me to let go and accept the possibility at that point. If I am mentally F'd for that, then so be it.

And as Naglfarslayer put it.

forced to prove an existence that was not meant to be proven

This^ is the basis and definition

belief that is not based on proof

of faith itself (Broken record going), it is the way it is because you CAN'T explain it. The Bible asks you to believe in the impossible, you have the choice of believing or not. I made the choice a few years back after witnessing the impossible.

With a bit of my life story told, I'm done here now, I am tired of the going back and forth in a debate that I assumed was doomed from the start (I had fun with it though), that will just go back and forth covering the same essentials, if only told differently.

One final word of advice to anyone and everyone: Believe what feels right to you, and stick by what you believe.

[Esau of Isaac]

No, that is retarded. But, I did allow my mind to open/revert/whatever you want to say, to the point where I may believe the impossible. Have I lost it? Perhaps, but what I have seen made me choose it. Tell me. If someone close to you is dying, and multiple doctors essentially say "Nothing can be done", and you resort to just trying the impossible, prayer, of all things, and then watch it work with no explanation. Tell me? What do you believe then?

That something unexpected occurred. Not that fucking God happened, or that the impossible occurred

It was enough evidence for me to let go and accept the possibility at that point. If I am mentally F'd for that, then so be it.

That is your reasoning for believing that God exists? Why? Because it was unlikely for someone to survive?

So, basically, the lottery proves the existence of God.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Crystal Shards]

This^ is the basis and definition of faith itself (Broken record going), it is the way it is because you CAN'T explain it. The Bible asks you to believe in the impossible, you have the choice of believing or not. I made the choice a few years back after witnessing the impossible.

Which is a cop out argument. "I believe so it must be true." Cool. I believe in spaceseamonkeys. NO NO YOU CAN'T TELL ME IT DOESN'T EXIST. I SAID I BELIEVE. I HAVE FAITH. YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG. DON'T USE YOUR LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. IT CAN'T BE EXPLAINED. STOP STOP STOP ST--

So the masses keep taking their opiates.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Which is a cop out argument. "I believe so it must be true." Cool. I believe in spaceseamonkeys. NO NO YOU CAN'T TELL ME IT DOESN'T EXIST. I SAID I BELIEVE. I HAVE FAITH. YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG. DON'T USE YOUR LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. IT CAN'T BE EXPLAINED. STOP STOP STOP ST--

So the masses keep taking their opiates.

Pretty much this.

If I went through my life convinced that I had an imaginary friend who did things for me, I would likely be confined to an asylum or put on medication, because believing the impossible like that is generally considered to be insane, except, almost arbitrarily, in the case of a religion.

[Naglfarslayer]

Pretty much this.

If I went through my life convinced that I had an imaginary friend who did things for me, I would likely be confined to an asylum or put on medication, because believing the impossible like that is generally considered to be insane, except, almost arbitrarily, in the case of a religion.

Which leads one to wonder why religion is granted a reprieve, and the clergy isn't herded to the nearest Dorothea Dix establishment.

[Shuuda]

Which leads one to wonder why religion is granted a reprieve, and the clergy isn't herded to the nearest Dorothea Dix establishment.

Because religion existed before the field of psychology. Or it might just be a matter of numbers; when one person believes, it is called a delusion, when lots of people believe it is called religion... or something like that.

[Crystal Shards]

Because religion existed before the field of psychology. Or it might just be a matter of numbers; when one person believes, it is called a delusion, when lots of people believe it is called religion... or something like that.

It's the former, because the latter would also rule out cults.

[Meteor]

It also rules out Detroit Lions fans.

[Der Kommissar]

It also rules out Detroit Lions fans.

They really should just quit fucking around and rename the team The Losers.

[Alacalibur]

Lulz. religion. Lulz.

[Phoenix Wright]

They really should just quit fucking around and rename the team The Losers.

The Browns took that name already.

[Shuuda]

Cilver, please do not spam. This is a verbal warning, the next time will be different.

[Colonel M]

Meh, don't really care much about the topic at this point but anyway.

They really should just quit fucking around and rename the team The Losers.

At one point I thought the "Detroit Rejects" was better. Though yeah, our state sucks in general (worst roads, a governer that doesn't exactly know what to do (tbh the last governer we had is to blame), high-crime cities, one of the fattest states, etc).

Only good things I can think of for our state are minimal to the US. There was Government Motors, but they tanked out obviously.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Colonel M

[Celice]

I knew Aideen & Midir do a good pair, I let Midir die in Ch 1 when a whole bunch of axe fighters and archers sorrounded him and you know the rest...

Jamuka is essentially the same... :/

If Claude survives, you can use the Valkyrie Staff to resurrect him, though he probably doesn't belong at that point on.

EDIT: goddammit

Edited July 17, 2009 by Celice

[Aitherion]

Jamuka is essentially the same... :/

If Claude survives, you can use the Valkyrie Staff to resurrect him, though he probably doesn't belong at that point on.

This is the most convincing argument for or against God's existence in this topic so far.

[Willfor]

Personally, I have found the best argument for God is that we are nothing more than clumps of bacteria who have harnessed the power of electricity, and chemical reactions to create the largest plague ever known by the bacteria that have infested Earth. Some tend to find this as more of an argument against God, but then again, some children fancy dressing up in their parent's clothes and thinking they know everything.

Personally? I know nothing.