Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Prove the Existence of God(s)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1651-1675 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 7:48:07 PM PDT
mark says:
"There are experiences in the world, that takes not knowing and not recognizing your part in a creative source, to experience."

I think this describes every experience I've ever had, especially if you add...not caring about.

Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 10:06:04 PM PDT
Rastafolux says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 10:35:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 7, 2012 4:55:06 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 10:43:24 PM PDT
Michael Schwed: God is perfect being

Rachel: An unsupported assertion.

MS: A perfect being must exist or it would not be perfect

RRR: Another unsupported assertion and a non sequitur.

MS: Therefore God must exist

RRR: A false conclusion from faulty premises. Fail.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:51:17 AM PDT
'God is perfect being'
A perfect being would be fulfilled. The biblical god is not. He has yet to attain perfection through humanity.

'A perfect being must exist or it would not be perfect'
I'm lost on that one!

'Therefore God must exist'
Not based on the above he doesn't.

T Crown

Posted on Jul 2, 2012 4:59:46 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
A perfect car must exist or it wouldn't be perfect. Therefore, a perfect car does not exist.... because there's no logical necessity that says it MUST exist.

Posted on Jul 2, 2012 7:26:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 9:09:01 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
The Ontological Argument is the best argument against the "discipline" of philosophy I can think of. Like most philosophical writing, it's gibberish. Alvin Plantinga, by the way, is the leading living proponent of this particular brand of drivel.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 7:53:11 PM PDT
CAM says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 8:23:00 PM PDT
brunumb says:
CAM: "Enough to send His Son to die for OUR SINS."

Do you believe it is evil or immoral to demand a human sacrifice as the only satisfactory payment for a debt?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 8:50:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 9:04:14 PM PDT
Michael Schwed said: "God is perfect being
A perfect being must exist or it would not be perfect
Therefore God must exist"

My daughter happened to be sitting next to me earlier and noticed your post. She commented that nobody is perfect, so no perfect being can exist. I'm not certain that I can argue with her logic. And, I must admit, your logic here has me a little befuddled. Can you please explain more clearly what you mean?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 9:02:36 PM PDT
brunumb said: "CAM: "Enough to send His Son to die for OUR SINS."

Do you believe it is evil or immoral to demand a human sacrifice as the only satisfactory payment for a debt?"

Personally, I think Jesus was a mystic and most people in his time, and our time, completely misunderstood what he was talking about, although the author of the Gospel of John (although not an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry) may be the only one who had an inkling. Regardless, I don't believe the message to be gotten from what Jesus said was that he was literally the son of God or that he literally died for our sins. I think Jesus was speaking a little more...figuratively, maybe, or philosophically, or mystically. It even says in several places in the canonical gospels that Jesus took his disciples aside to explain to them what he was really talking about, but, unfortunately, none of these conversations were recorded. Pity. It may have cleared up a few misunderstanding, but probably not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 9:11:51 PM PDT
Severin says:
"The New Oxford Annotated Bible - Revised Standard Edition" has a footnote for Judges 12:31 stating: While human sacrifice was viewed with abhorrence by the Hebrews throughout most of their later history, there is some evidence (as here) that it was practiced in early times, and there were occasional relapses even at a relatively late date (2 Kg 21.6).

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 10:53:52 PM PDT
brunumb says:
Do YOU believe it is evil or immoral to demand a human sacrifice as the only satisfactory payment for a debt?

Posted on Jul 3, 2012 6:04:13 AM PDT
Severin says:
I don't believe in sin or God or an afterlife so if you only mean spiritual debts then my answer is no. I was just pointing out that human sacrifice wasn't unknown in 'biblical' times.

Many people have sacrificed their lives for others, the World Trade Center rescuers come to mind first of all but also soldiers, firemen, etc. Of course soldiers on both sides of a war may think they're doing the right thing, with God on their side.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 6:33:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 6:33:44 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
The Ontological Argument HAS been refuted, many times and in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections

My own example mirrored Gaunilo's: the fact that you can -conceive- of something perfect doesn't force the universe to produce it. You say a perfect being must exist; I say a perfect car must exist, for the exact same reason. And yet, there isn't one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 9:48:37 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 9:51:17 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
The crucifixion seems to be a barbaric relapse to the pagan faiths that Christianity purports to have supeceded. It's a throwback to idolatry, but modern Christians put enormous stock in it. Whereas modern Christians view the animal sacrifices practiced by the Romans and ancient Hebrews as savage and atavistic, somehow the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus' life is not on the same continuum, but a completely new departure, an act of that bears no relation to ritual animal sacrifices that took place under the auspices of the Roman and Hebrew "official" religions. And to other, even more barbaric religions, that did use human sacrifice to propitiate the god(s).

Intertwined with Jesus' ritual sacrifice on the cross is "substitutional atonement," the inexplicable notion that Jesus' grisly and utterly unjust crucifixion serves in some some way to ameliorate or offset the sins of mankind.

I know of no NT passage that explains how Jesus' preordained and self-imposed sacrifice propitiates the god of the Old Testament. What is it about his son's suffering and death that pleases the Father? Preachers often speak laudably about how "God sacrificed his only son" on behalf of mankind, but nowhere is this explained. It's just assumed that God is perfectly justified in using his "son" as a medium of exchange: "You get to kill my son in order that all your sins will be forgiven." Or: "I'll sacrifice my son in order to forgive your sins." It's very puzzling why an omnipotent should have to do that. Why all the suffering? He could simply declare that the possibility of forgiveness exists, and get the same result.

Does the Father derive some sort of pleasure or satisfaction from Jesus' suffering on the cross? Does he feel more kindly towards mankind because of Jesus' suffering, which was caused by mankind and which he himself ordained? Why would the Father be mollified by this barbaric sacrifice that he himself commanded?

And what sort of morality is it that demands the suffering of the innocent as "payment" for the sins of the guilty? If it's a trade-off, what's the math? One Jesus-death equals how many sins?

Think of a Nazi commander who's captured a French village. Kommandant Ribbonstorfer assembles the townspeople in the town square, and makes the following announcement: "The men, women and children of this village have tried to undermine my authority. Some have engaged in sabotage. Therefore, it is my duty to execute every one of you."

The villagers tremble in fear.

"On the other hand, I'm a just and merciful man."

"Lefttenant Klinck, front and center." The hapless Klinck, Ribbonstorfe's second in command, stiffly marches the front, faces the troops, and stands at attention. Ribbonstorfer, to the troops: "Present arms. Make ready. Aim. Fire." Riddled with bullets, Lefttenant Klinck falls dead to the ground.

Ribbonstorfer, to the villagers: "Klinck has saved your lives. You must worship Klinck forever, and if you do so in the right manner, I will spare some of you. Now, fall to your knees and give thanks to me and to Klinck."

Does this make sense?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 9:58:17 AM PDT
Bubba says:
But not all soldiers in a war believe in god(s). My great uncle was a Marine in WW2 and became a staunch atheist because of what he saw in war. He never said what he saw that made him an atheist.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 10:33:11 AM PDT
Severin says:
Then it's not true what they say that there are no atheists in fox holes. I never believed it. But so many in war or sports or church think that God is on their side. They can't all be right since one side always loses. Guess it comes down my god can beat up your god. Or there just is no god.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 10:36:07 AM PDT
Severin says:
I agree with D. Thomas. As our supposed creator God created us capable of sin, created Satan to lure us to sin, set up the rules of what is a sin and determines the penalties. It's a fixed game that we're supposed to be grateful for and tithe 10% of our earnings for participating.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 3:05:58 PM PDT
brunumb says:
DT,
Good analogy, but I think it would be even closer if Ribbonstorfer got the villagers to kill Klinck. The Bible version is more like "Kill my son and I will forgive you your sins".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 4:10:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 6:15:16 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Fair enough. I had Ribbonstorfer order the killing because God, being omniscient, planned the whole thing, knowing all along that Jesus' human nature would be sacrificed. So God was ultimately responsible for his death.

In a single act, God and his human surrogates committed the crimes of deicide, parracide, suicide, homicide, regicide and fratricide.

But you're right: He should have ordered the villagers, perhaps the town leaders, to do the dirty work. For many generations, those town leaders and their offspring would have been persecuted by the other townspeople in retribution for what they did to poor Klinck. But Ribbonstorfer didn't try to stop them, since he was a just and merciful Kommandant who loved the villagers and granted them the most important thing in the universe, the illusion of free will.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 5:18:10 PM PDT
D. Thomas, do you base all your opinions of Christianity on dogmatics, or have you ever attempted to interpret Christian scripture for yourself?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 6:11:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 9:00:02 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
"Dogmatics"? Are they like "dogmas," except they change doctrines automatically?

As to interpreting scripture, I don't know modern Greek, let alone koine Greek, the language of the New Testament.

Regardless, why do you care?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 6:24:51 PM PDT
Severin says:
D. Thomas, Have you seen "The Last Temptation of Christ?" It sympathizes with Judas who is doing God's work in betraying Jesus but somehow he's still cursed for his act.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 9:03:19 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Odd, I replied to your post, but my response has not yet appeared, even after refreshing the screen several times. I've had that happen several times lately.

Okay, I'll try again:

I've heard about the movie for years, but haven't seen it. It's in my Netflix queue.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  221
Total posts:  9878
Initial post:  Dec 28, 2011
Latest post:  May 26, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions