The Great Faith Debate

[»D1st0rt]

This whole debate is pointless, you are all going to suffer $ETERNAL_PUNISHMENT for not believing in $DEITY

[Bak]

you're wrong! there's obviously evidence for $DEITY in $OLD_BOOK. And we know it's right because it says so in $OLD_BOOK. It also says we shouldn't kill each other; why do you want everyone to not accept $DEITY and kill each other?

[Bak]

speaking of religion, the book of Mormon says there were Jews living in North America like a thousand years ago. any Mormons care to explain what the !@#$%^&*?

[AstroProdigy]

They also say there was an epic battle between Jesus and Lucipher and the angels who sided with Jesus were blessed with being white whereas those who sided with Lucipher were cursed as demons and those who refused to take a side became black people. Explain that! Edited August 8, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[FMBI]

IDEN!@#$%^&*Y CHRISTIANITY IS COOL! KILL THE KHAZARS (that's Jews to the rest of us)! THE BRITISH ARE THE TRUE JEWS AND THROUGH THEM AMERICA IS GOD'S CHOSEN LAND! YEAHHH BABY!

 

I had a good lol when I first found out about this theory, but apparently there are millions of midwestern people who take it seriously.

[Bak]

so in the story of sodom and gomorrah, Lot, the one good person in the cities, attempts to give his two virgin daughters to a crowd that wanted to sodomize the angels that came to talk to Lot. nice morals christianity/judaism/muslims.

[Dadoc]

so in the story of sodom and gomorrah, Lot, the one good person in the cities, attempts to give his two virgin daughters to a crowd that wanted to sodomize the angels that came to talk to Lot. nice morals christianity/judaism/muslims.

 

No one is perfect. Almost everyone in the Bible did something that you might not agree would be right. This is the point. We all do things at some time that we probably shouldn't.

 

I doubt that you are such a righteous person who hasn't lied, stolen, or done any other type of harm to someone at sometime. We all have done something like this...and it's good to know that we can get redemption for it.

 

Even science has proven the Bible to be accurate and the Bible is the most accurate historical book in existence and is used as a reference tool in archaeology for events that have happened within the last 2000 years. They have recently found the locations where the Red Sea was parted and where Noah's Ark landed. Pieces of the Ark have been discovered on a mountain in the Middle East and broken wheels and parts of chariots of Egyptian origin from the time that the event is to have occurred and bones have been found in the middle of the Red Sea at the location believed to have been crossed. (Because of the geography of the Sea floor, it had been determined that there were only approximately 2-3 places they could have been able to walk across and this one was found by submarine with video and pictures.) This was done not by casual observers but archaeologists.

 

If I had doubt before, I don't now. The design of Noah's boat as described in the Bible is flawless. A scale model was made as described in the Bible and tested in a wave chamber and was unsinkable even with comparatively high waves as those that would have been created in a storm such described.

 

...and I could go on about other things from the Bible, but I won't. Yes, believe as you will, I don't fault you for your disdain of what is conceived to be the christian church. And I agree that there are people as described who claim to be of such. But know that in every group there are good and bad...and the bad is what is placed in the public eye. We all make mistakes, even those who "know" better. Many times what they do is not what the Bible says to do, so the mistake is not the faith but the actions of the person who made the mistake.

 

You can only be held accountable for YOU. Seek the truth for yourself...for it is written, Seek and you shall find. That's what I did and I still do, for I doubt we could ever comprehend the whole truth as human, just as we can never comprehend the whole universe. This universe, this Earth, this eco system is blended to work in such harmony and placed so well...

 

The planets in all the Solar systems going in perfect and/or near perfect orbits. The earth going around the sun in such a way that it doesn't hit any other planets. Even though each has a gravitational pull worthy of such and tug each other constantly, especially when we are the closest to them. The asteroid belt, the moon (the closest of which can be seen with the naked eye), and other planets in the outer solar system blocking so many of the asteroids that would have spelled our doom centuries, if not ages ago...

 

The plants and animals...even down to the bacteria in the earth contributing to the intricate balance of our eco system which not only maintains, but even re-corrects itself while we are trying to destroy it.

 

Could this all be by pure chance? Bang and zoom and here it is? Believe that if you want, it is your choice...but I prefer not to.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Kelaiah

[FMBI]

The problem is that the Bible is also extremely inaccurate in some respects, and it was very, very, heavily influenced by other religions. Both Judaism and Christianity took a lot of things from Zoroastrianism, and the book of Genesis is a ripoff of the old Sumerian religious texts (which, by the way, make more sense than Genesis itself).

 

Also, let's not forget that just because something is true in one area doesn't mean it's true in others. I could name half a dozen alternate religious traditions that had major portions of their texts validated through archaeology and historical analysis, and yet you would claim they aren't true or only "show that the Bible is true."

 

 

edit - Also, Kela, there are many genocides, rapes, etc, that were not only recorded in the Bible, but actually endorsed by God himself.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Bak]

broken wheels and parts of chariots of Egyptian origin from the time that the event is to have occurred and bones have been found in the middle of the Red Sea at the location believed to have been crossed.

Are you honestly saying the best explanation for bones at the bottom of the Red Sea is the Moses story? There's at least a thousand more likely explanations.

 

The plants and animals...even down to the bacteria in the earth contributing to the intricate balance of our eco system which not only maintains, but even re-corrects itself while we are trying to destroy it.

 

Could this all be by pure chance?

It's absolutely ridiculous to think all this happened by chance, which is why you'll have trouble finding people who claim that. Natural selection is huge driving force (definitely not chance), and life is very good at survival and reproduction because of it.

 

 

---------------------------------------

 

But let's get back to the story of Lot. You say that not everyone in the Bible is perfect, which is fine. But somehow you need to get your moral values, correct? How can you rely on the Bible for this when sometimes people are being immoral within it? How do you decide when someone is being moral in the Bible and you should follow his example, and when someone is being "not perfect". It would appear your sense of morality doesn't come from the Bible at all...

[Delic]

I believe that there's a certain point where spiritualism and science meet.

I believe that "everything is everything", which is a sentence that represents (part of) my beliefs.

I believe that science has the potential to explain every aspect of spiritualism.

 

That's why I like that do!@#$%^&*entary / movie "What The Bleep Do We Know"!

 

I believe in God, but I think that the whole concept of "God" has been very misinterpreted,

which is pretty well explained in that do!@#$%^&*entary.

 

I believe that the different religions are just different methods of the same thing, which a lot of times

is done blindly simply because of tradition.

 

I think that the Bible and most religious texts are so metaphorical and deep that they can't really be

used as a means of explanation of the different religions, they always end up being misinterpreted.

 

The Bible contradicts itself because life is one big contradiction, because death for example, is part of life.

 

I also am against organized religion. If your beliefs are imposed, inflicted, then they're not really beliefs;

you need to come to your own essence.

 

but this topic is way too complex!!

[SeVeR]

I believe that "everything is everything"

Do you mean that everything is part of everything else? The way you put it sounds quite dumb tbh lol

[Delic]

I thought it was a pretty well known philisophic / ideological saying.

Yes, that's basically what it means, although it obviously involves a lot more

that I don't have the time to type about!

[Bak]

The Bible contradicts itself because life is one big contradiction, because death for example, is part of life.

it sounds good, but it's nonsense. what do you MEAN?

[vetta64]

Please specify contradiction, I don't think you really know what the word means or why you are referencing it to the bible, that is just something your dad said to you so he wouldn't have to read it to you.

[aquarius]

I know what he's saying. Everything is everything. Really vague way of putting it though.

 

It's circular theory. Contradictions. Life as we know it is full of contradiction. I contradict myself and so does everyone else. Life is a big contradiction, as you try to understand things they become obscured. Much like, looking at the ground inches away from your face, it's chaotic and has no uniform pattern, but if you 'zoom out' and look at the planet, it's a circle, it travels in a predictable circle. When you zoom out, things become predictable, when you zoom in they become chaotic.

 

We're in the age of dualism. Up and down, left and right, happy and sad, night and day.

 

Contradictions of life are hard to explain and easy to forget, esoteric. Which is why discussions about such things are very difficult.

Religious texts are full of them, but that's alright because, so are we.

 

So many people in history have fought for social justice and ultimately lost their souls and settled for power. Contradiction on a deep level.

 

So many go to church and then commit immoral, borderline evil acts. (I believe it is evil if you know you are doing wrong but choose to anyway.) Contradiction.

 

Ahh screw it, contradictions are too hard to explain. Contradiction.

[FMBI]

Actually, I think he was more referencing the God After God thing. Which is really, really, hard to explain, and doesn't even make much sense in the original reading. But if you can pick up a copy of the book, go for it.

[Tigron-X]

I understand that there is reality and we all have our own individual reality, which is nothing more than a perspective of the whole. And as for me, I cannot conceive of an existence where there is no almighty being that created existence.

 

For those who seek proof of such a being, do you even know what you're looking for?

What are the identifying traits of such a being?

 

 

And if you want me to prove to you the existence of such a being, then I ask you to first prove infinity.

[FMBI]

If you're the one who knows that this being exists, why don't you tell us what it is?

 

And.... infinity and "god" are not equivalent. Infinity is an extremely useful concept that has done wonders for math and physics. God, in whatever cultural form you choose, has done nothing but set back science for thousands of years. Plus, science and god shouldn't mix, since that gives us things like ICR.

[Tigron-X]

If you're the one who knows that this being exists, why don't you tell us what it is?

 

It's not within my authority to define a being that has jurisdiction over me. I can only seek to understand.

 

 

And.... infinity and "god" are not equivalent. Infinity is an extremely useful concept that has done wonders for math and physics. God, in whatever cultural form you choose, has done nothing but set back science for thousands of years. Plus, science and god shouldn't mix, since that gives us things like ICR.

 

It is obvious that you have defined "god" by your own terms and conditions.

 

To me, the term God, when capatalized, referes to an almighty, eternal being. It is a title of honor. And this being that I vaguely refer to is almighty and eternal, which is equivalent to infinity by definition, an infinite of infinites even.

 

To claim that "God has done nothing but set back science for thousands of years," is to presume that God and religion are the same thing.

 

However, God is who or whatever He proves to be, and religion is the contemplation of who or what God is.

 

And you, by your own will, determine who or what God is. However, individual reality is not reality. There is a definite truth, and it is your choice to seek it or deny it.

 

My choice is to seek understanding. And in that journey I will contemplate love, righteousness, morality, justice and so on. In that pursuit, I will gain awareness as to who or what God is. But, I will never presume to tell you that I have the whole truth and nothing but the truth because I am just a man living in a finite capacity, and my comprehension is limited to my imagination.

[SeVeR]

A God is nearly always described as a being with great power and knowledge, and is usually attributed with creating the universe.

 

A religion is something that attaches things to this idea of God. So it depends on what your idea of God is before you can claim to separate it from religion. If you are a Christian then your God is defined almost completely by what the Bible says, and by that definition they are interchangeable. So to put things into perspective, if the Christian God exists in all the ways defined by Christianity, then he has definitely set back science by centuries.

 

Infinity is a mathematical concept but also a metaphysical one (if that's the right word). Many people believe that space and time are infinite, and that infinite power was required to produce the Big Bang. I for one don't think that the Big Bang required infinite energy, and therefore if there was a creator then he didn't need to be infinitely powerful. Thus infinity and God are not interchangeable.

 

There is a definite truth, and it is your choice to seek it or deny it.

Seek it yes. Deny it... how? I put it to you, how can someone ever know what the truth is? There is a great quote by a man named Xenophanes. He lived in Ancient Greece two and a half millenia ago, he said: "No human being will ever know the truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even know they had done so."

 

It's worth thinking about that one for a while.

Edited February 9, 2009 by SeVeR

[Tigron-X]

A religion is something that attaches things to this idea of God. So it depends on what your idea of God is before you can claim to separate it from religion. If you are a Christian then your God is defined almost completely by what the Bible says, and by that definition they are interchangeable. So to put things into perspective, if the Christian God exists in all the ways defined by Christianity, then he has definitely set back science by centuries.

 

For argument sake, could you name or site one example of how God has set back science for centuries?

 

Infinity is a mathematical concept but also a metaphysical one (if that's the right word). Many people believe that space and time are infinite, and that infinite power was required to produce the Big Bang. I for one don't think that the Big Bang required infinite energy, and therefore if there was a creator then he didn't need to be infinitely powerful. Thus infinity and God are not interchangeable.

 

Here is the dilema. Instead of proving infinity, you are trying to disassociate infinity with God. Therefore defining God within your own terms and conditions. Thus, you've already decided who or what God is.

 

Furthermore, your comment, " for one don't think that the Big Bang required infinite energy, and therefore if there was a creator then he didn't need to be infinitely powerful. Thus infinity and God are not interchangeable," is one leap in logic.

 

For arguments sake let's say that the Big Bang didn't need infinite energy as you claim. The appropriate logical deduction to follow would be: Therefore a creator wouldn't need to apply infinite power.

 

More so, I fail to see how the neccessities of the Big Bang restrict the powers of God.

 

There is a definite truth, and it is your choice to seek it or deny it.

Seek it yes. Deny it... how? I put it to you, how can someone ever know what the truth is? There is a great quote by a man named Xenophanes. He lived in Ancient Greece two and a half millenia ago, he said: "No human being will ever know the truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even know they had done so."

 

It's worth thinking about that one for a while.

 

Denying truth is denying onself of knowledge and understading with regards to existence. You can do that by never seeking knowledge.

 

Logical deduction will provide answers regarding the truth. Thus gaining a larger perspective of reality.

 

As we are not omnipresent beings, then we will never gain an entire perspective of reality. We are limited to individual realities. So we will never grasp the whole truth. That doesn't mean truth doesn't exist. Xenophanes' only point is that we are incapable of fully comprehending the truth. Is that not truth in itself?

Edited February 10, 2009 by Tigron-X

[»Lynx]

I'd done so well avoiding this topic for so long, but what the heck...

 

'Tigron> And if you want me to prove to you the existence of such a being, then I ask you to first prove infinity.'

 

It's questions such as these that 'faith' always thrives from. You look at something which seems impossible, from your point of view and lack of knowledge, then therefore assume that there is an almighty power which created this impossibility. Take the case of even simple happenings when something happens. You'll find that three questions arise - what, how and why. You will get an answer to the first question within a short period of time, as it is physical in nature. You have to spend more time to answer the second question. It is mental in nature. Different persons may give different answers for the third question. But you will never get a true answer for it - it is philosophical in nature. This by no means proves any higher power, unless that is your own comprehension, therefore showing the futility of your question in the first place. Hence:

 

'Tigron> my comprehension is limited to my imagination.'

 

-L

[Tigron-X]

I'd done so well avoiding this topic for so long, but what the heck...

 

'Tigron> And if you want me to prove to you the existence of such a being, then I ask you to first prove infinity.'

 

It's questions such as these that 'faith' always thrives from. You look at something which seems impossible, from your point of view and lack of knowledge, then therefore assume that there is an almighty power which created this impossibility. Take the case of even simple happenings when something happens. You'll find that three questions arise - what, how and why. You will get an answer to the first question within a short period of time, as it is physical in nature. You have to spend more time to answer the second question. It is mental in nature. Different persons may give different answers for the third question. But you will never get a true answer for it - it is philosophical in nature. This by no means proves any higher power, unless that is your own comprehension, therefore showing the futility of your question in the first place. Hence:

 

'Tigron> my comprehension is limited to my imagination.'

 

-L

 

You've done nothing but put words in my mouth and argue a point I've never made.

 

And it wasn't a question, but a challenge of equal magnitude so that people could realize the futility of requesting for proof of God.

 

The impossibility of proving infinity isn't a matter of perspective or knowledge; it is a matter of reality. It is impossible to prove infinity by definition. It is a concept that is widely accepted in the math community without question. It is used in calculus and transfinite arithmitic. Google "Georg Cantor" and you will come across set theory which is a theory that leads to the concept of infinity of infinities! Yet, there is no proof that infinity even exists. It is simply accepted by faith. In fact, Cantor even equated the Absolute Infinite with God. And that is coming from someone who is well versed in the concept of infinity.

[SeVeR]

For argument sake' date=' could you name or site one example of how God has set back science for centuries?[/quote'] Here are two examples of how the Christian God as defined by Christians had set back science by centuries. From the Bible:

 

"Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 96:10)

 

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)

 

The Christian God is defined by the Bible, as Christians say God inspired and co-wrote every word of it. Thus the Church held that God deemed the Earth to be stationary and the Sun to be in motion around it. People such as Copernicus were afraid to publish their contradictory work, and their work was "blashphemous" when it was published, setting back astronomical science by centuries.

 

Here is the dilema. Instead of proving infinity' date=' you are trying to disassociate infinity with God. Therefore defining God within your own terms and conditions. Thus, you've already decided who or what God is.[/quote'] Not once have i tried to define God. Don't you see, I am disproving your notion that God requires infinity to be a creator-God. Prove to me that the universe required infinite energy to create and I will not criticise this statement you made "And if you want me to prove to you the existence of such a being, then I ask you to first prove infinity.", which states that if a God exists then he requires infinities.

 

Furthermore' date=' your comment, " for one don't think that the Big Bang required infinite energy, and therefore if there was a creator then he didn't need to be infinitely powerful. Thus infinity and God are not interchangeable," is one leap in logic.

 

For arguments sake let's say that the Big Bang didn't need infinite energy as you claim. The appropriate logical deduction to follow would be: Therefore a creator wouldn't need to apply infinite power.[/quote'] It is irrelevant to my point whether he has it and chooses not to use it, because i was dispelling the argument that "he needs to have infinite power". He doesn't need it if he is creating something that isn't infinite. Your statement is correct, as is my original statement in the context i was using it. I'm not going to argue that because both make the same point that God doesn't need to have infinite power because there is the possibility that the universe isn't infinite.

 

However, when I say that God doesn't need to be infinitely powerful, and you criticise that by saying "God doesn't need to apply infinite power" then your earlier assumption would imply you still believe God requires infinity to exist.

 

More so' date=' I fail to see how the neccessities of the Big Bang restrict the powers of God.[/quote'] The Big Bang is the earliest known effect of the first unknown cause. Religionists use this as an excuse to say "God did it". It doesn't restrict the powers of God if the Big Bang didn't require infinite power, i never said it did. I effectively said "give me an infinity that God created before assuming God has infinite power". The Big Bang is just one popular infinity that religionists use, yet this is as unproven as God.

 

Denying truth is denying onself of knowledge and understading with regards to existence. You can do that by never seeking knowledge.

Well i don't really think it's worded correctly. To deny truth would be to see a truth and then reject it. I seek knowledge but the only knowledge i claim to possess is that gaining any more knowledge is impossible. Knowledge is defined as justified true belief' date=' but you can't justify anything as true. You have an almost infinite regression of justification for beliefs until you hit upon an assumption that isn't completely justified. But to get back on point, if you or I were to never seek knowledge then we still wouldn't be denying truth by your definition as by my understanding truth is unattainable.

 

Logical deduction will provide answers regarding the truth. Thus gaining a larger perspective of reality.

Logical deduction is the best process we believe for seeking truth, but it won't give us knowledge.

 

As we are not omnipresent beings' date=' then we will never gain an entire perspective of reality. We are limited to individual realities. So we will never grasp the whole truth. That doesn't mean truth doesn't exist. Xenophanes' only point is that we are incapable of fully comprehending the truth. Is that not truth in itself?[/quote'] Yes, I agree with everything said here.

Edited February 10, 2009 by SeVeR

[Tigron-X]

For argument sake' date=' could you name or site one example of how God has set back science for centuries?[/quote'] Here are two examples of how the Christian God as defined by Christians had set back science by centuries. From the Bible:

 

(1) "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 96:10)

 

(2) "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)

 

The Christian God is defined by the Bible, as Christians say God inspired and co-wrote every word of it. Thus the Church held that God deemed the Earth to be stationary and the Sun to be in motion around it. People such as Copernicus were afraid to publish their contradictory work, and their work was "blashphemous" when it was published, setting back astronomical science by centuries.

 

Seeing as how you've capatalized Church, I'm going to assume you mean the Catholic Church. Now, this is the same Church that advocates false ideals like hell, purgatory, a trinity, that Jesus died on a cross, that your soul is eternal, that your soul is something other than just your body, and so on. This is the same Church that sought to hide knowledge from people. This Church is also found to be the Harlet in Revelations.

 

To touch on your points specifically...

 

(1) Moved is synonymous with shaken. Meaning there is a set course. I fail to see how that hinders science.

 

(2) All that says is that the sun rises from the same side that it did the previous day. Even today we still say the sun rises. The poem does nothing but point out the consistency of certain natural phenomenon.

 

But most of all, this is the Church hindering science, not God.

 

Here is the dilema. Instead of proving infinity' date=' you are trying to disassociate infinity with God. Therefore defining God within your own terms and conditions. Thus, you've already decided who or what God is.[/quote'] Not once have i tried to define God. Don't you see, I am disproving your notion that God requires infinity to be a creator-God. Prove to me that the universe required infinite energy to create and I will not criticise this statement you made "And if you want me to prove to you the existence of such a being, then I ask you to first prove infinity.", which states that if a God exists then he requires infinities.

 

Let me get this straight... You put words in my mouth and claim that you're disproving my notion? Show me where I claimed that God requires infinity to be a creator-God. I don't even understand what you mean when you say, "...he requires infities."

 

I never said he required anything.

 

Furthermore' date=' your comment, " for one don't think that the Big Bang required infinite energy, and therefore if there was a creator then he didn't need to be infinitely powerful. Thus infinity and God are not interchangeable," is one leap in logic.

 

For arguments sake let's say that the Big Bang didn't need infinite energy as you claim. The appropriate logical deduction to follow would be: Therefore a creator wouldn't need to apply infinite power.[/quote'] It is irrelevant to my point whether he has it and chooses not to use it, because i was dispelling the argument that "he needs to have infinite power". He doesn't need it if he is creating something that isn't infinite. Your statement is correct, as is my original statement in the context i was using it. I'm not going to argue that because both make the same point that God doesn't need to have infinite power because there is the possibility that the universe isn't infinite.

 

However, when I say that God doesn't need to be infinitely powerful, and you criticise that by saying "God doesn't need to apply infinite power" then your earlier assumption would imply you still believe God requires infinity to exist.

 

If anything, I'd be implying that God is infinity. I'm not arrogant enough to impose requirments on God. The universe might be finite, but I don't figure that existence (or life) is finite.

 

I effectively said "give me an infinity that God created before assuming God has infinite power". The Big Bang is just one popular infinity that religionists use, yet this is as unproven as God.

 

To say the least, the aspects of the Big Bang are irrelevant to this conversation.

 

It's not that God has infinite power; it's that God is infinite power. That's just by definition. "God" is a title given to an almighty, eternal being. Eternal is synonymous with infinite. Almight is synonymous with infinite-power.

 

If you disagree to that, then you have your own definition of "God."

 

Now, I've presented mine. You should present yours.

 

Denying truth is denying onself of knowledge and understading with regards to existence. You can do that by never seeking knowledge.

Well i don't really think it's worded correctly. To deny truth would be to see a truth and then reject it. I seek knowledge but the only knowledge i claim to possess is that gaining any more knowledge is impossible. Knowledge is defined as justified true belief' date=' but you can't justify anything as true. You have an almost infinite regression of justification for beliefs until you hit upon an assumption that isn't completely justified. But to get back on point, if you or I were to never seek knowledge then we still wouldn't be denying truth by your definition as by my understanding truth is unattainable.

[/quote']

 

You're right. Truth is something that cannot be possessed. However, an understanding of the truth is attainable, and that's the point.

 

"I seek knowledge but the only knowledge i claim to possess is that gaining any more knowledge is impossible."

 

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly... Are you claiming that you're all knowing?

 

I find that knowledge has a lot more to do with awareness than it does belief. I would say "theory" is defined as justified true belief. I'd have to look into this further. I may not have fully grasped what you're saying.

 

Logical deduction will provide answers regarding the truth. Thus gaining a larger perspective of reality.

Logical deduction is the best process we believe for seeking truth' date=' but it won't give us knowledge.

[/quote']

 

I don't entirely agree with that because it gives wisdom.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Tigron-X