Good job Bush.

[Neutrino]

I concur. If there is no evidence for either side of an argument to agree on, then it's just speculation, theory or undeterminable. Yeah, I can have no proof that grass isn't green and you have proof that grass is green, but if there is clear, factual evidence to prove it, then it's a futile argument because grass is obviously green and both sides must agree. With God and his / it's existence, the 100% factual evidence just isn't there or we simply don't know it yet; therefore both sides are neither right nor wrong and to claim as if you utterly know the answers is arrogant (not saying you are). I will admit that I believe there is a God, but not in the way that most people, be it religious people, believe in. I'll explain my beliefs indepth if need be. I dunno, I just started drinking again for the night so hopefully I'd make some sense if I were to explain lol.

Oh I agree and I definitely don't pretend to know the answers. You can look in the religion thread in off topic to see what my views are if you want to know.

I do agree that any absolute belief in the face of no evidence is a form of arrogance or egoism, but I don't think it's the same as what we usually consider those things to be. Arrogance or egoism usually means the thought that oneself is superior to others, but this has to do with the thought that one's beliefs are superior to others. It's kind of a technicality, but there is some difference. I think absolute belief in something is better described as a lack of perspective, rather than arrogance. The way we think is a result of our experiences. Since those experiences are only made up of a very short life on a small part of the Earth it is somewhat to be expected that a person's persepective reflects that. Where if a person were shown the universe in its entirety they would have quite a different perspective on things I think. Just my thoughts on it.

 

[MadHatter]

Oh I agree and I definitely don't pretend to know the answers. You can look in the religion thread in off topic to see what my views are if you want to know.

Never said you did. :frog:

I do agree that any absolute belief in the face of no evidence is a form of arrogance or egoism, but I don't think it's the same as what we usually consider those things to be. Arrogance or egoism usually means the thought that oneself is superior to others, but this has to do with the thought that one's beliefs are superior to others. It's kind of a technicality, but there is some difference. I think absolute belief in something is better described as a lack of perspective, rather than arrogance. The way we think is a result of our experiences. Since those experiences are only made up of a very short life on a small part of the Earth it is somewhat to be expected that a person's persepective reflects that. Where if a person were shown the universe in its entirety they would have quite a different perspective on things I think. Just my thoughts on it.

You must have missed it when I said it. I said I don't believe every atheist or religious person is arrogant. It's just the ones that boast and act haughty about their beliefs and treat other peoples' beliefs as if they're nonesense compared to their beliefs. I've met and conversed with quite a few goths (the social trend) that are like that (not to say all goths are like that though). Same goes for religious people. It's over-assertiveness that deserves the title of arrogance.

 

[Neutrino]

You must have missed it when I said it. I said I don't believe every atheist or religious person is arrogant. It's just the ones that boast and act haughty about their beliefs and treat other peoples' beliefs as if they're nonesense compared to their beliefs. I've met and conversed with quite a few goths (the social trend) that are like that (not to say all goths are like that though). Same goes for religious people. It's over-assertiveness that deserves the title of arrogance.

Oh ok, sorry about that.

 

[Death.Trap]

And even if he did exist, I would hate him.

What? Why would you hate him?

 

[Absinthe]

What? Why would you hate him?

copied/pasted from another forum:

Omnipotence/Disaster Paradox: From what I've heard from Christians, disasters in the world are actually a product of our own free will. However, God is also omniscient, therefore God is fully aware of all the bad things that do and will happen. The only way one can be omniscient is if there is fate. A set path that life travels on. God cannot know who will become a murderer, thief, or rapist unless the development of such characters is unavoidable.
How is this relevant? Well, God created these people with the knowledge that they would one day become "evil". Such people were destined to Hell from the start. And if God was fully aware of what his creations would do, then he is actually responsible for all actions that take place in the world, including tragedies.

As for his benevolence and mercifulness... I have not seen such qualities outside of his egotism. God is only benevolent and merciful to those that worship him, and I'm of the belief that people worship him not necessarily out of love, but solely out of the fear of his wrath. If you do not love God, then you will be punished. If you do not do what God says, then you will be punished. And your punishment consists of an eternity in Hell. His actions are entirely self-serving and have little to do with the essence of charity. He creates life for the sole purpose of his worship and unfairly dispenses with the lives of those that don't flock to his oh-so-loving arms.

So how can God be lenient and yet also harsh? How can he be benevolent and yet also malevolent? How can God be omniscient when there is free will?

He can't. He is a massive logical contradiction, and thus he is incapable of existing. And if he does exist, he is certainly farfrom perfect.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Sorry to say this, but men live with purpose, as they die with it. I hope it does'nt upset you men can be torn to shreds, and the santicity of life ruined when an artillery shell hits an orphanage, but you must understand.

Wether where just matter colliding, or were really Gods creatures, time, or genetics, or a deity, does control somewhat of where were going.

If someone dies, then I believe with mathematical term, it was with purpose, and due to reason. Maybe not a human reasoning with emotion, but a different more mechanical reasoning.

God could work this way. After all, I believe two of our greatest punishments, according from the Garden of Eden incident, were;

The Development of Seperate Intelligence (Where we became indepedent of Gods hands, and made our own)

The Developement of a Cognitive Realization of Mortality (We cursed ourselves with Satans curse. We were now capable of aging, and dying. Sin, helped us realize that).

Dont thump me, but I'm just pointing that out.

 

[burner69]

Sorry to say this, but men live with purpose, as they die with it. I hope it does'nt upset you men can be torn to shreds, and the santicity of life ruined when an artillery shell hits an orphanage, but you must understand.

Wether where just matter colliding, or were really Gods creatures, time, or genetics, or a deity, does control somewhat of where were going.

If someone dies, then I believe with mathematical term, it was with purpose, and due to reason. Maybe not a human reasoning with emotion, but a different more mechanical reasoning.

God could work this way. After all, I believe two of our greatest punishments, according from the Garden of Eden incident, were;

The Development of Seperate Intelligence (Where we became indepedent of Gods hands, and made our own)

The Developement of a Cognitive Realization of Mortality (We cursed ourselves with Satans curse. We were now capable of aging, and dying. Sin, helped us realize that).

Dont thump me, but I'm just pointing that out.

I agree with some of that. If it was 'bad' that people died it wouldn't happen.

But I don't believe in Eden etc, tho it is a very good way of helping to explain things that are almost impossible to understand.

Good post Ker