Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/11/06 10:14 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Well....i completly agree with you.....there lot´s more of things that makes me think like this...but anyway....that´s it!!!!

personally i favor the budhist teachings of karma and being 'the observer' in times of stress. It was said that in the 20 some odd years where the bible completely SKIPPED jesus' adulthood, jesus traveled to india and learned from some of the spiritual masters how to become 'enlightented' and walk on water and turn water into booze and all of that magic stuff.

it's why alot of jesus' teachings are more closley related to karma then they are to the idiotic idea of a loving god punishing people to an eternity in a place called 'hell'

Hum....well....in my case i just don´t belive in hell...i have anything against who belives so...
about budhist,i don´t know too much about it.....all i know is that buda borned from a flower heheh......but i don´t know,i don´t think any of the religion are completly right,many of them have their problems...but there are some right things about all of that...in all the religions i´ve heard and read something about,for example,hace a character,a person,a kind of god, who was destinated to come to earth and help the people....catholic,jude,the nordic mytology,the greek mithology,even the incas belived that some day a god was going to came on earth to hel them.....i think things like that isn´t just coinsidence,and they should look for more thingsl ike that,because,in my opinion,things like that is a true thing.....Anyway....srry about my english

First off I'd like to say, no one has actually stated Religion for what it is, a theory, aka, the theory of God, or Gods. Some of you have spent all this time saying "Oh there's no proof, so your talking BS" when clearly, you haven't looked at what you are saying or imposed the same restrictions on your own arguments. Personally I feel that anyone (especially in such heated and stiffly sided arguments such as this) who resorts to swearing or calling someone retarded for there thoughts is just using their last ditch effort to try and spit 'you're wrong and I'm right, and if you dont think think so you're stupid' which also leads us to the reason 99% of all wars in history were fought, belief. I mean honestly, if you're going to argue, do it, but think about what you're writing down, calling someone a retard for their counterpoint to your now well thought out to begin with reason, kinda makes you the retard, no? Anyways... uhh, self replicating RNA molecules arose from the basic elements present in what has been coined the primordial soup on well..primordial Earth, laboratory tests have been carried out mimicing these conditions (high pressure, heat, UV, etc, etc) and very basic self replicating molecules have been produced. Anyone who would like an interesting take on God, I would direct them to the ...I dont know what to call it, well its called "God's Debris" It'll open some minds I'm sure but it brings up very cool interesting thoughts I'm sure no one (unless you've read it) have had http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/ godsdebris.pdf . Ever wonder why science has cropped up as such a counter to religion and magic and faries, because it explains WHY things happen, what caused them, etc. People thought up witches and magic, gods and all sorts of crazy things to explain what at the time was unexplainable, their minds (as well as a lot of the population today...) couldn't handle or understand things so the easy answer is...magic, some all powerful thing that can do anything did this thing that no else can do... thing. Today people have a greater understanding of the world by looking deeper farther and harder at everything, it's built into our very genes, curiosity, the thirst and search for knowledge to explain that which we do not know. Frankly the simple answer is 'God did it'. All these theories everyone brings up I feel are hardly understood to their true meaning by any others than those who study them at University or are professors or the scientists, they are fed to the public in laymans terms so that the average layman can understand them, now this leaves some who are above this average to point out the discrepancies or the things that are missing, but it really takes a lot of work to understand all these things, and frankly not everyone needs to, but thank ...well, God (for lack of a better term) some do, lol. All in all, every discovery anyone ever makes will only inevitably lead to more questions, so where does it all end? God? sure, whatever allows you to sleep at night and not worry about all the molecules in your body flying apart in a million directions as all your ionic bonding systems crumble under your failed logic. You may now proceed to swear at me. Make my day : D (P.S. I'm sure the happy face and bold statement will get me some people calling me retarded, or other related comments)

At 12/11/06 01:07 PM, RedGlare wrote:

At 12/11/06 02:22 AM, Peter-II wrote: Alright, let me go through your post.

Well if there your Aces i seriously wouldn't bother i mean the Big Bang is just a theory ,a good theory but still a theory.

First error: you don't knock him down on the fact that the big bang doesn't disprove the existence of God at all,

Your point being?
given the fact that if somthing did disprove God we wouldn't be having this debate in the First place. Plus the fact that i said that they weren't good arguements imply's they don't.

He said that the big bang disproves God. You might as well have just taken the easy path and said that it doesn't.

I see and the true term is?

The true term IS theory. You just seem to have a bad idea of what a theory is in terms of Science.

given that ive not seen proof that the big bang did happen its still just an idea. Unless there is proof in which case please share.

There's a lot of proof.

-The big bang model predicts the expansion of the universe, and the universe is expanding. Redshift, etc.
-The big bang model predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is existential.
-Abundance of light elements
-Galactic distribution of the universe
-etc.

If all your going to do is criticise me for not stating my points the way you want then fuck you.

If you seriously think that saying "the big bang theory is just a theory" then you have a lot of catching up to do.

Which came from?

Primeval oceans?

Im sorry but what? your slagging me off because you don't think i believe what i wright.

I'm slagging you off because you sound like you're using the argument just because it's convenient for you at this very moment.

Besides does it matter whether or not i believe it myself? no your just being nosey seriously it makes no difference what so ever whether i do or don't.

Well if you don't, then you shouldn't be using that argument.

I don't think you don't believe it yourself, I just think you haven't put that much thought into it.

Well lets see now the very building blocks of all matter and energy is atoms yes?

Actually, the building blocks of all matter are fermions, and the building blocks of all energy are bosons.

if so then realisticly they must be one of the earlist stages of universly development and the arguement that they can't be destroyed etc is an arguement i've heard manytimes but not in detail.
Look it up yourself if you care so much. Im not your wet nurse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_ big_bang

At 12/8/06 09:52 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 12/8/06 09:47 PM, SilentObserver wrote: If you guys could post messages or links to sites with good, sound arguments against God, it would be much appreciated.

Good luck on trying to prove something that can't be done. There is no proof against God, unless you're some sort of moron who think The Bible contradicts itself, or something like that.

The Bible does contradic itself;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzzORZhnCao

At 12/8/06 09:56 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Proof against God usually stems from misinterpreting religious texts or something like that.

Nobody can prove God doesn't exist because nobody can even prove that they exist themselves, or that the universe itself is real.

A human who doesn't know how they got here, doesn't know where they are going cannot possibly prove that God, something that exist soutside of our tiny 3-dimensional universe doesn't exist.

Any human who suggests otherwise is a fool.

I can prove that I exist; All I have to do is punch the person in the face and they'll know I exist, because if I didn't, I wouldn't have been able to interact with them.
On the other hand, I'd like to see you try put up an argument proving that we DON'T exist.

With "interaction" in mind, I can safely say that God does not exist because no one on earth has proven that he has interacted with them.

If someting doesn't exist within our "tiny 3D universe," then it doesn't exist at ALL because we will never be able to interact with it.

It's just like saying that Santa exists because he "exists" in another dimention called "Imagination." In the scope of immagination, Santa can exist, but if you're older than 10 and told your friends that Santa was real, they'd laugh at you.

This being my first post in the forums, let me first state that I am a firm believer in Christianity, however I find topics like this enlightening. I'm an open-minded Christian, who'd like to think of himself as an intellectual, haha, and I enjoy hearing dissenting views argued rationally.

I don't think anyone has really investigated the problem of evil yet, which surprises me. It seems to me the toughest and most convincing argument against the beneficent God of the Bible. How could a loving Creator allow such horrific suffering to take place on earth? If God was truly omnipotent, He could eradicate evil; and if He were truly omnibenevolent, He would eradicate evil. Evil and suffering and corruption exists. Therefore, God cannot be both all-powerful and all-good as the Bible describes Him.

This is a powerful argument, but I believe it fails to take some things into consideration. First, the God of the Bible is also regarded as infinitely wise. Our time is not necessarily His time. I believe that He is waiting in order to reach the best possible outcome. The problem of evil seems to suggest that God, were He to exist, would act automatically and on impulse. Some would argue that if there were a Supreme Being, He would never have allowed evil to exist in the first place. This is a commonly used argument, as well, however it too fails to consider the agency of free will. Christianity, at least from my perspective, views free will as a wonderful gift from God (although theologians disagree on exactly how libertarian the human will is). In the beginning, He gave us the option of violating His perfect and divine will and told us from the get-go that there would be terrible consequences. One may ask, "If God is all-loving, how could He permit human beings to screw themselves over?" I find it ironic and saddening that people are quick to become angry with God for allowing them to do bad things; when we do good things, are we thankful for the opportunity?

That knowledge of evil is exactly what we asked for, and this brings me back to my first point. Does a fish know that he's wet? Without a knowledge of "evil," I do not believe we ever could have fully appreciated "good." It is my Christian conviction that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross made it possible for us to have paradise once more, this time with a recognition of goodness.

These arguments are more objections to God's character than to His actual existence. I'm afraid I haven't time now to go into others, but you might try investigating the argument from poor design, which is basically the antithesis of the teleological argument for the existence of God. Well, I hope this post was helpful to you. :-)

Religious people are ALL hypocrites.

I mean, would anyone join a religion if it wasn't for the "eternal life" feature?
I guaranteed you that if you belived that you would gain eternal life by being athiest rather than religious, there wouldn't be any religious people.

At 12/12/06 02:18 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: Religious people are ALL hypocrites.

I mean, would anyone join a religion if it wasn't for the "eternal life" feature?
I guaranteed you that if you belived that you would gain eternal life by being athiest rather than religious, there wouldn't be any religious people.

I don't think deists believe in an afterlife, but I could be wrong.

At 12/12/06 02:00 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: I can prove that I exist; All I have to do is punch the person in the face and they'll know I exist, because if I didn't, I wouldn't have been able to interact with them.

You can prove that experientially, but it would be more difficult to prove it logically. Also, you would have to rely on axioms that could not be proven. You would not accept my testimony as a theist. Why should I place my faith in your experience?

If someting doesn't exist within our "tiny 3D universe," then it doesn't exist at ALL because we will never be able to interact with it.

Actually, many physicists believe that there are several dimensions that never "uncoiled," meaning they do exist, but not in our experience. It involves string theory, and I don't completely understand it myself, but how can you positively say that no nonmaterial reality exists?

I think you should all give yourselves a round of applause for struggling to prove or disapprove of a deity's existence thus far.

I think I've read a lot of posts, ..and the fact remains that it's not proof that you need, it's faith in God. In the bible it says to believe in him, and he will reveal himself to you.

if your looking for proof let me know when you find some, until then the best way to prove if God's real is to find out yourself.

Ive heared that God is fueld by faith then what if (hypothetically) there wasnt enought faith to power god eternal power? Wouldnt that make him vulnerable to attack from the devil/lucifer/saten what ever the hell you want to call the prick.

At 12/12/06 01:30 AM, Peter-II wrote: If you seriously think that saying "the big bang theory is just a theory" then you have a lot of catching up to do.

Ouch!

That's meant to say If you seriously think that saying "the big bang theory is just a theory" is in any way a valid argument, then you have a lot of catching up to do.

At 12/11/06 11:36 PM, JaredC4 wrote: First off I'd like to say, no one has actually stated Religion for what it is, a theory, aka, the theory of God, or Gods.

Not even close. It is not the "Theory of God" at all, but the Axiom of Deities.

A theory requires an observation first, then proof supporting that explanation for those observations. Religion is founded on the assumption first of a deity, then on justification of the world based on that assumption; proof is actually frowned upon by most religions!

Some of you have spent all this time saying "Oh there's no proof, so your talking BS" when clearly, you haven't looked at what you are saying or imposed the same restrictions on your own arguments.

And where, specifically, do you see that double standard? The entire problem here is that believers don't apply the restrictions of logic and proof to Religion, but demand it for everything else.

Anyways... uhh, self replicating RNA molecules arose from the basic elements present in what has been coined the primordial soup on well..primordial Earth, laboratory tests have been carried out mimicing these conditions (high pressure, heat, UV, etc, etc) and very basic self replicating molecules have been produced.

Wrong. No self-replicating molecules have ever been produced through such attempts, and the closest anyone has come is the creation of organic molecules in one controversial (and essentially disproven, at this point) set of experiments that no one could replicate. We are still very unsure about the exact composition of the ancient Earth atmosphere.

All in all, every discovery anyone ever makes will only inevitably lead to more questions, so where does it all end? God? sure, whatever allows you to sleep at night and not worry about all the molecules in your body flying apart in a million directions as all your ionic bonding systems crumble under your failed logic.

Paragraphs next time, please.

the bible was written after jesus died so for all we know a bunch of friends got together and said i know lets write the bible and make lots of money off something that is totally an ideal.There is no evidence except the bible if that is even evidence and not some crap that a bunch of people with way to much free time just sat down and wrote. But then again we can't disprove god.

At 12/12/06 02:28 PM, Flashman3001 wrote: the bible was written after jesus died so for all we know a bunch of friends got together and said i know lets write the bible and make lots of money off something that is totally an ideal.There is no evidence except the bible if that is even evidence and not some crap that a bunch of people with way to much free time just sat down and wrote. But then again we can't disprove god.

The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written after Jesus' crucifixion (c. A.D. 45-95), but the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were written long before. The Bible was written by a total of forty authors spanning a period of 1,500 years, so I think it's fair to say that a bunch of guys didn't just come together and say, "Hey, let's write a book," haha.

Consider the field of biblical archeology. Skeptics have argued against the truthfulness of the Scriptures based on the fact that, for hundreds of years, there was no physical evidence to support the existence of cities and peoples (for example, the Hittites) mentioned in the Bible. However, recent excavations in Israel have proven that such places and races did exist. One more that comes to mind is the Pool of Siloam, noted in the gospel of John, which was uncovered completely by accident.

One more thing, Flashman... the New Testament authors did not profit from their works. All were persecuted by the Roman and Jewish authorities; the majority were tortured and killed.

The Babel Fish.

At 12/12/06 06:38 PM, teknostik wrote: At 12/12/06 02:28 PM, Flashman3001 wro

.

One more thing, Flashman... the New Testament authors did not profit from their works. All were persecuted by the Roman and Jewish authorities; the majority were tortured and kille

THE JEWS HAVE NEVER PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS. THIS BELIEF IS SPREAD BY ANTISEMITES.

At 12/12/06 02:08 AM, teknostik wrote: I don't think anyone has really investigated the problem of evil yet, which surprises me. It seems to me the toughest and most convincing argument against the beneficent God of the Bible. How could a loving Creator allow such horrific suffering to take place on earth? If God was truly omnipotent, He could eradicate evil; and if He were truly omnibenevolent, He would eradicate evil. Evil and suffering and corruption exists. Therefore, God cannot be both all-powerful and all-good as the Bible describes Him.

Actually we have... just maybe not in this thread. There are so many, sometimes we can forget one or two points. However, it is a decent argument agains the Abrahamic religions, though not necessarily agains all possible versions of a deity capable of creating a universe. The problem is, you're missing a logic branch in the equation... Gods "holiness" or omnibenevolence. His omnipotence renders the possibility of our free will moot. Thus any action taken in the universe is the direct responsibility of God. Then, how can evil exist, if god is "holy", or separate from sin, or incapable of doing evil?

Your response to the argument is a decent one... that being omnipotent, the evil that exists does so to bring about the greater goodm, the best possible outcome. However, there is still the fact that God is described as holy, omnibenevolent, and perfect. Does this mean that he MUST do evil in order for the best outcome to come about? Does this not fly in the face of what is tought in every church in the world?

I acknowledge the possibility... can you?

At 12/11/06 10:14 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that i beleive in miracles, but it seems that in places all around the world, people who have experienced near death have claimed to see a bright light 'at the end of the tunnel' and all of that jazz. Notice, not one of them talks about seeing hell.

I saw a program one time that said that was what happens as your retinas detach from your eye. That ruined my day.

At 12/12/06 09:01 PM, Ravariel wrote: The problem is, you're missing a logic branch in the equation... Gods "holiness" or omnibenevolence. His omnipotence renders the possibility of our free will moot. Thus any action taken in the universe is the direct responsibility of God. Then, how can evil exist, if god is "holy", or separate from sin, or incapable of doing evil?

I'm not a believer in absolute omnipotence, and I don't think that's the biblical position either. God is only limited by His divine attributes and insofar as He limits Himself by His word.

I fail to see how omnipotence renders free will moot. If we're talking about ultra-libertarian free will, then yes, you can't do anything you want, haha. One could argue, in that case, that by keeping us on the ground the laws of gravity violate our free will. I want to fly! *crash* It doesn't work that way. Nothing happens without God's allowance, however this does not mean that God necessarily makes all things come to pass. Parents sometimes allow their children to make mistakes; logically, though, are they the "cause" of those mistakes?

As I said in my previous post, theologians debate over (very intensely, I might add) exactly how "free" our free will is. In the conservative corner, you have Calvinists who advocate predestination, basically theistic determinism; you have Arminians and Wesleyans who believe that God has given us the power to decide our own fates, but still maintain His perfect sovereignty; then there are "open theists" who hold that God's power is, in fact, restricted by human will.

This problem is interesting to me because, by claiming that evil is universally identifiable and suffering always bad, it argues from the position that morality is absolute. This idea forms the basis of the moral argument for the existence of God.

Your response to the argument is a decent one... that being omnipotent, the evil that exists does so to bring about the greater goodm, the best possible outcome. However, there is still the fact that God is described as holy, omnibenevolent, and perfect. Does this mean that he MUST do evil in order for the best outcome to come about? Does this not fly in the face of what is tought in every church in the world?

I acknowledge the possibility... can you?

Well, I don't believe that God's is the only acting will. One major theme of the Bible is that God desires that we "freely choose" to act in accordance with His divine, perfect will. It also says that He works through evil brought about by human will in order to achieve something good that He wills, and the New Testament promises that, in the end, "all things work out for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose."

At 12/12/06 07:00 PM, G-Locked wrote:

At 12/12/06 06:38 PM, teknostik wrote: One more thing, Flashman... the New Testament authors did not profit from their works. All were persecuted by the Roman and Jewish authorities; the majority were tortured and kille

THE JEWS HAVE NEVER PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS. THIS BELIEF IS SPREAD BY ANTISEMITES.

Umm, no. I'm not anti-Semitic at all. I'm a Christian zionist. :-)

At 12/13/06 04:24 AM, teknostik wrote: I'm not a believer in absolute omnipotence,

There's another kind?

and I don't think that's the biblical position either. God is only limited by His divine attributes and insofar as He limits Himself by His word.

He only has four divine attributes (iirc), all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omiscient), Eternal (atemporal, outside of time), and holy (separate from sin). First and second are paradoxical when taken together... first and fourth are paradoxical when taken together... second and third are paradoxical when you add what is considered to be his "word" in many places in the bible.

Unless the first really isn't ALL. If he is limited by his own attributes (i.e. cannot do evil, can only choose the best course or among multiple courses that are equally good) might also his other attributed be limited in the same way? And isn't an omni-attribute not omni if it is limited in any way?

I fail to see how omnipotence renders free will moot.

Here is where his second and third attributes become problematic. Being atemporal and omiscient, he can and must see and know every step in the history of the universe. Every atom's movement, every gravitational ripple, every "choice" we make. He rendered the universe, if he is really atemporal, whole, past present and future as one. He, literally, created the paths we follow, every fork in the road we take, every word we type, every correction of grammar we make. If he is omniscient and atemporal, we are just cogs in a machine and any "free will" we have is purely illusory.

If we're talking about ultra-libertarian free will, then yes, you can't do anything you want, haha. One could argue, in that case, that by keeping us on the ground the laws of gravity violate our free will. I want to fly! *crash* It doesn't work that way.

I only speak in terms of ability to choose between alternatives... the ability to create, the ability to do something new.

Nothing happens without God's allowance, however this does not mean that God necessarily makes all things come to pass. Parents sometimes allow their children to make mistakes; logically, though, are they the "cause" of those mistakes?

But, by definition, god MUST have made all things come to pass. Your metaphor breaks down because the parent might think, or believe very strongly that a child is about to make a mistake... but they don't know. Not like God must (again, by definition). The child could alwyas decide at the last minute to heed their parents' warning (i.e. noticing that the stove gets really warm as you get nearer to it), or get distracted by something else (oh, there's where I left that toy... nevermind looking for it in the light socket with this fork), or actually make the mistake work (well, whaddaya know, he actually put the VCR back together and it still works).

This problem is interesting to me because, by claiming that evil is universally identifiable and suffering always bad, it argues from the position that morality is absolute. This idea forms the basis of the moral argument for the existence of God.

My position has always been that morality is absolute, but that it takes an infinite amount of information to determine exactly how moral an action is. Basically that any action has good and evil consequences and, much like the butterfly and the hurricane, they're not always apparent. However, I don't believe that this morality stems from any divine decree, but rather from a purely objective standpoint: Anything that does harm, restricts or retards a person, community, or people is evil... anything that advances/helps/heals the same is good. Any action can have good and evil consequences... in fact very few ever are perfectly one or the other (see abortion, stem cell research, animal testing, killing in self-defense, etc).

Well, I don't believe that God's is the only acting will. One major theme of the Bible is that God desires that we "freely choose" to act in accordance with His divine, perfect will. It also says that He works through evil brought about by human will in order to achieve something good that He wills, and the New Testament promises that, in the end, "all things work out for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose."

And yet, how can any other will actually act when the entiretly of the universe's timeline was made by god "in the beginning".?

Note to those of you who have debated thology with me before:

This is how you do it.

Congratulations, teknostik, on being the first person to give a good, rational, theological argument to any question ever posed by me and other non-believers on this board. Keep it up.

At 12/12/06 05:39 AM, mealpower wrote: I think you should all give yourselves a round of applause for struggling to prove or disapprove of a deity's existence thus far.

I think I've read a lot of posts, ..and the fact remains that it's not proof that you need, it's faith in God. In the bible it says to believe in him, and he will reveal himself to you.

if your looking for proof let me know when you find some, until then the best way to prove if God's real is to find out yourself.

I was born a Catholic and I've experienced a LOT of religions.
I've known Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics and Christians (other).

I went to a full-on christian school for 2 years and they were HIGHLY religious, they talked about god in the middle of maths classes and in Sports lessons, just about anywhere, anytime. We had chappel twice a week and it lasted 2 hours each time.

They did all these weird things like put their hands on people's forehead and made them talk weird (tongue) and made them faint sometimes and they claimed that it was the Holy Spririt entering their hearts...

I never believed any of it. Later, I changed school and went to an Anglican school, It was a very, open-minded school, we harldy ever had chapel and it was very traditional. We had a few religion lessons but they were not just about christianity, but all relgions and the reverend that taught us in those lessons (who happened to be a women) told us that the "fainiting" associated with the Holy Spirit was not caused by any "divine force" but rather an overwhelming amount of emotion that a person experiences when they "go out of their way."

Everything that religion has done is scientifically explainable. What people claim to be "experiencing god" is in fact merely experiencing your own emotions of being "changed."