Who Cares If God Exists?

[Elijah]

Therefore, God is more responsible for us than science.

[PhanthomOps]

Shunyadragon:

Quote:
"Considering some of the statements you have made before concerning evolution it is not clear what you consider proven. Since science is so interconnected selecting what you consider proven based on religious conviction and not the matter of fact of science can considered selective and problematic."

I don't remember ever mentioning anything that would lead one to feel that I accept "evolution". I don't !!!!!!!!!

I personnaly feel that science is the human study and revalation of God's creation. The fact that science proves another one of God's handiwork, does not in my opinion prove to be selective or problematic.

Elijah:
Quote: "God created what science studies, science did not create god." and "Therefore, God is more responsible for us than science."

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :)

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, Shunyadragon: Quote: "Considering some of the statements you have made before concerning evolution it is not clear what you consider proven. Since science is so interconnected selecting what you consider proven based on religious conviction and not the matter of fact of science can considered selective and problematic." I don't remember ever mentioning anything that would lead one to feel that I accept "evolution". I don't !!!!!!!!!

Read my post clearly. You mentioned that you accepted what science proved, therefore, because of the interconnectiveness of all science it made it unclear how you viewed evolution.

I personnaly feel that science is the human study and revalation of God's creation. The fact that science proves another one of God's handiwork, does not in my opinion prove to be selective or problematic.

What does science prove concerning God's handiwork? The interconnectiveness of all sciences makes selective acceptance based on religious prference inconsistent.

Elijah: Quote: "God created what science studies, science did not create god." and "Therefore, God is more responsible for us than science." I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :)

Of course, science did not create God. Science never claimed to. I agree that God is more responsible, but since the Bible does not refer to itself as the literal word of God and it widely contradicts itself and is inconsistent with history it cannot be relied on as a literal account of how God created existece.

[Elijah]

Where is that. "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness."
Oh it doesn't does it? *snicker*
How is it inconsistant with history?
Where does it contradict itself? maybe your interpretations do, but in reality it never does.

[PhanthomOps]

Shunyadragon,

Quote: "Read my post clearly. You mentioned that you accepted what science proved, therefore, because of the interconnectiveness of all science it made it unclear how you viewed evolution."

Quote: "What does science prove concerning God's handiwork? The interconnectiveness of all sciences makes selective acceptance based on religious prference inconsistent"

God created all things, including the human. In the human quest for knowledge, which has many categories - man created what is commonly known as Science being one of them having many sub-categories. The part of science that I completely reject is evolution. There are many aspects that I do accept as the revalation of God's hand. The planets in syncronous orbit around the sun, the stars the universe, nature, etc.

Quote: "the Bible does not refer to itself as the literal word of God"

Revalation 22:18-19 - Jeremiah 30:2-4 - John 20:31

Quote: "widely contradicts itself" Where ?????

[Impenitent]

nauseating...

why would one want to prove something which can only be taken on faith?

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

IF YOU BELIEVE , THEN BELIEVE... HAVING TO ARGUE FOR IT SHOWS A GREAT LACK OF FAITH...

think about it...

[PhanthomOps]

Impenitent:

We're not aruging - this is just a debate, and both sides need to be stated.

I admit it sometimes gets heated, but that is the name of this website -

Volconvo is heated debate.

[Impenitent]

yes this is argument... that is exactly how philosophers converse...

ar·gu·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy-mnt)
n.

A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: “sheath'd their swords for lack of argument” (Shakespeare).

A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.


but this ignores the point of faith

[PhanthomOps]

Impenitent,

Okay you say it is an argument and I say it is a debate.

Actually, both are right and depends upon how you approach the subject - as an argument or as a discussion.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - My faith in God is unshakable, and I take God at His Word.

[Impenitent]

no, you take what some human has told you was god's word and bought into it... that is on you and that's fine...

if you take it on faith you don't have to justify it...

[PhanthomOps]

I'm not attempting to justify it - just explain my position.

Thanks for your help.

[CJFreeman]

I have to have faith that each of you actually wrote what you did. I have no physical evidence. Sure, I see the words, but how do I know you're not just taking dictation? How do I know that you aren't just lifting your comments from some scrapbook somewhere?

I suppose you have to have faith that I'm not doing the same. Funny how we don't question the things in front of us. Makes me wonder if some people have enough arrogance to be cocky on others' behalfs.

Cheers!
Christopher J. Freeman

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, Shunyadragon, Quote: "Read my post clearly. You mentioned that you accepted what science proved, therefore, because of the interconnectiveness of all science it made it unclear how you viewed evolution." Quote: "What does science prove concerning God's handiwork? The interconnectiveness of all sciences makes selective acceptance based on religious prference inconsistent" God created all things, including the human. In the human quest for knowledge, which has many categories - man created what is commonly known as Science being one of them having many sub-categories. The part of science that I completely reject is evolution. There are many aspects that I do accept as the revalation of God's hand. The planets in syncronous orbit around the sun, the stars the universe, nature, etc.

Using the Bible Christians rejected these in the past. If you accept the stars in the universe . . . ah, etc. Do you accept the universe, solar system and the earth are billions of years old?

Quote: "the Bible does not refer to itself as the literal word of God"

Revalation 22:18-19 - Jeremiah 30:2-4 - John 20:31

Does not refer to the Bible. They refer to the word of God. The Bible was selectively compiled by the Romans long after these words were writen by men.

Quote: "widely contradicts itself"  Where ?????

Many places the following are only a few examples:

(1) How many of each animal did Noah take into the Ark, besides the construction of the Ark is physically impossible and could not hold the required animals.

(2) The OT describes the slaughter of children and inocents for generations after the proported crimes were commited in many places. Other quotes say this is against the law of God.

(3) NT gives conficting geneologies for Jesus and the order is switched.

[PhanthomOps]

Shunyadragon:

Quote: "Using the Bible Christians rejected these in the past. If you accept the stars in the universe . . . ah, etc. Do you accept the universe, solar system and the earth are billions of years old?"

Whether Christians of old and present reject this, I being bound to my Christian belief take by faith Genesis 1:1-25.

I cannot prove nor disprove the actual age of creation which has no consequence to my faith. To me it is irrevelant, and only man's attempt to vainly prove his superior???? intellegence.

Quote: "Does not refer to the Bible. They refer to the word of God. The Bible was selectively compiled by the Romans long after these words were writen by men."

The Bible was written over an approximate 1500 year period. The book of Job actually preceeds all others in that no where in its' writings does it make mention of the "Law". The English Bible as we basically know it is derived from the "King James Bible" printed in 1611, long after the Roman Empire.

Jeremiah 30:2-4 - "Thus speaks the Lord God of Israel, saying: Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you - For Behold, the days are coming, says the Lors, that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah, says the Lord. And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it - Now these are the words that the Lord spoke concerning Israel and Judah"

John 20:31 - "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believinbg you may have life in His name"

Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book - and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"

To this, may I add "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness - that the man of God may be complete, throughly eqqiped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16-17

This/these word/words refer to what countless millions call the Bible.
All Scripture directly refer to the Old and New Testaments.


QUOTE PhanthomOps
Quote: "widely contradicts itself" Where ?????

Quote: "Many places the following are only a few examples:

(1) How many of each animal did Noah take into the Ark, besides the construction of the Ark is physically impossible and could not hold the required animals.

Scriptue states that he was instructed by God to take 2 of every living creature (male & female). As to the size and whether by our (human) calculations is possible or not, it is irrevalent because is was accomplished.
Moot Point.

(2) The OT describes the slaughter of children and inocents for generations after the proported crimes were commited in many places. Other quotes say this is against the law of God.

One must examine the Scriptures to understand what God's purpose was before critizing. Perhaps in order to preserve Israel and all peoples that would follow in time, He needed to eliminate the evil (Satin's) influence. Take Sodom and Gamorah.

(3) NT gives conficting geneologies for Jesus and the order is switched."

That does not in-and-of itself prove confliction. For instance there are a couple of DIFFERENCES between Genesis chapters 1 and 2. That does indicate confliction - just another account of the same series of events.

You and I attend the same hockey game. You describe it one way and I another. Is that contradiction or a different way in describing the same event????

[NNY]

me im agnostic i believe in ALL possibilities

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these 10 things he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time...but he loves you.

For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to have sex. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.

What was it that Adam ate that he wasn't supposed to eat? It wasn't just an apple -- it was the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The subtle message? Get smart and I'll fuck you over -- sayeth the Lord. God is the smartest -- and he doesn't want any competion. Is this not an absolutely anti-intellectual religion?

Finally:
What if no one's watching?
What if when we're dead
We're just dead?
What if it's just us down here,
What if God is just an idea
Someone put in your head?

[PhanthomOps]

NNY,

This is an exact copy of what you posted on Your Religion and conclusions.

My answer is the same.

Have a nice day :) :)

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, Shunyadragon: Quote: "Using the Bible Christians rejected these in the past. If you accept the stars in the universe . . . ah, etc. Do you accept the universe, solar system and the earth are billions of years old?" Whether Christians of old and present reject this, I being bound to my Christian belief take by faith Genesis 1:1-25. I cannot prove nor disprove the actual age of creation which has no consequence to my faith. To me it is irrevelant, and only man's attempt to vainly prove his superior???? intellegence.

Still ducking and weaving. If you say you believe in science, you need not prove or disprove the age of the universe. The foundation of contemporary physics and cosmology is based on the fact that the universe is billions of years old and based on the sped of light it is billions of light years or more in size.

Quote: "Does not refer to the Bible. They refer to the word of God. The Bible was selectively compiled by the Romans long after these words were writen by men."

The Bible was written over an approximate 1500 year period. The book of Job actually preceeds all others in that no where in its' writings does it make mention of the "Law". The English Bible as we basically know it is derived from the "King James Bible" printed in 1611, long after the Roman Empire. Jeremiah 30:2-4 - "Thus speaks the Lord God of Israel, saying: Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you - For Behold, the days are coming, says the Lors, that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah, says the Lord. And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it - Now these are the words that the Lord spoke concerning Israel and Judah" John 20:31 - "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believinbg you may have life in His name" Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book - and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" To this, may I add "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness - that the man of God may be complete, throughly eqqiped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16-17 This/these word/words refer to what countless millions call the Bible. All Scripture directly refer to the Old and New Testaments.

All scripture does not refer to the Bible. Archeology is beginning to find many different sources of scripture. The Roman, Orthodox and Protestant Bibles are different, Can you provide some documentation other than faith that thes quotes refer to one specific set of scripture that you call the Bible.

PhanthomOps Quote: "widely contradicts itself"  Where ????? Quote: "Many places the following are only a few examples: (1) How many of each animal did Noah take into the Ark, besides the construction of the Ark is physically impossible and could not hold the required animals. Scriptue states that he was instructed by God to take 2 of every living creature (male & female). As to the size and whether by our (human) calculations is possible or not, it is irrevalent because is was accomplished. Moot Point. (2) The OT describes the slaughter of children and inocents for generations after the proported crimes were commited in many places. Other quotes say this is against the law of God. One must examine the Scriptures to understand what God's purpose was before critizing. Perhaps in order to preserve Israel and all peoples that would follow in time, He needed to eliminate the evil (Satin's) influence. Take Sodom and Gamorah. (3) NT gives conficting geneologies for Jesus and the order is switched." That does not in-and-of itself prove confliction. For instance there are a couple of DIFFERENCES between Genesis chapters 1 and 2. That does indicate confliction - just another account of the same series of events. You and I attend the same hockey game. You describe it one way and I another. Is that contradiction or a different way in describing the same event????

Still ducking and weaving. You failed to respond to any of the above clear and obvious contradictions. This is not a hockey game and if it is the inerrant word of God, it would not make any difference if two or more people say the same thing differently. (1) Is a clear example of the absolute wide spread contradiction of God's instruction for man. It is more serious than a hockey game. Clear and specific differences cannot be considered two different ways of describing one event. If we both were watching the same Hockey game, we would both see the same amount of players on each team, If we were reporting for the Bible, God would see to it that we got it write, because he apparently is the editor that sees it as inerrant from your point of view.

[PhanthomOps]

Shunyadragon:

Here we go again -

Quote: "Still ducking and weaving. If you say you believe in science, you need not prove or disprove the age of the universe. The foundation of contemporary physics and cosmology is based on the fact that the universe is billions of years old and based on the sped of light it is billions of light years or more in size."

No, I'm not evaiding - I just simply said that Man's science is exploring and revealing the many works of God in His Creation. If man's science goes against what I read in the Bible I reject it. I as you have a choice. Now whether or not as is man's human hypothisis that the universe is or is not billions of years old, has no consequence and no meaning in my daily walk of faith with my God.

Quote: "All scripture does not refer to the Bible. Archeology is beginning to find many different sources of scripture. The Roman, Orthodox and Protestant Bibles are different, Can you provide some documentation other than faith that thes quotes refer to one specific set of scripture that you call the Bible."

I will get back to you on that.

Quote: "Still ducking and weaving. You failed to respond to any of the above clear and obvious contradictions."

Quite the contrary, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" 1 Corinthians 2:14
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" 2:16

So where you only see (perhaps intentionally) contradiction, I see unity.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, Quite the contrary, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" 1 Corinthians 2:14 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" 2:16 So where you only see (perhaps intentionally) contradiction, I see unity.

You can see anything you want if you hide from reality. I believe in UNITY, but not at the expense of reality.

When Christianity, particularly fundimentalist Christianity, claims the Bible the absolute inerrant word of God this a big claim. They challenges to science go all the way through to the education of children and it requires that those that support the Bible in this way to give a better defence than a vaguely related quote that does not address the problem of these contradiction.

I think skepicism is justified and I do not intentionally find contradictions.

Your responce is denial not reality in your statement "widely contradicts itself" Where ????? avoids the fact that they do exist.

[PhanthomOps]

Shunyadragon,

I am fully aware of and live in the reality of this world, and my 63 years of life are full of experiences, and I am not in denial, which you assume me to be.

My belief and faith in God is not based on the actions or lack thereof of fundimentalist Christianity. It is based on the Bible, in God and the fact that He has proven Himself to me and my family beyond what we ever expected or wished for. This is reality to us.

If you tell me that you believe in something, and I constantly require absolute proof, that to my way of thinking is not proof when you give it although you believe it is - does that mean what you believe in is not real or meaningful to you??

My daily walk with God in expression of my faith and belief encompasses my spirit, soul, mind, heart and emotions. I believe this with every fiber of my being - and will never rennounce my God or belief even if it means my life.

Yes a certain amount of skepticism is healthy. In my personal search for something more meaningful I was extremely skeptical, full of disbelief, and my combat experiences haunted me constantly. Subsequently after much trial and error, etc. I came to the point where I finally found peace, and I have been there ever since.