Hmmmmmmmm

Tasma:

I've always found this topic a bit funny and maybe also pointless. First off if you ask a man if he believes in God and he says yes, what does that tell you? It in fact says very little until you know his concept of God. A muslim believes in God and still in not of the same belief as a Christian. A good guess would be that everyone in one way or the other has some concept of God or a creator in his mind. It's natural as human beings to reason that for anything to exist there must be a creator. So again what does the statement "I believe in God" tell us. Absolutely nothing! It simply means our minds have the tendency or need to believe in a creator.

In your quick summation to categorically dismiss all claims of a God, you have deliberately ignored a valid inference. Granted, there are different claims of / for the existence of or a belief in God. Granted, those different claims CANNOT all be true (especially considering that they are diametrically opposed in many cases). However, a valid inference is that, one (or more) of them may be true. Fine, it might be tedious to consider the different accounts individually, however, for someone who is so hasty to generally conclude that we cannot attain such knowledge, it would be worth the while if you could at least examine the major claims and determine if such claims were logically consistent and trustworthy or not.

The argument that God must exist because you pray to him and he answers your prayers is equally funny. A Buddhist may also pray to whatever symbol and have his prayers answered.

some analogies are just overdone. those examples are not mutually exclusive - the possibility of a Buddhist getting his prayers answered does not rule out God being the one who answers my prayers.

Furthermore the answering of prayers is a matter of perception and is also subjective

And evidently, the question of a God is ulitmately subjective.

The argument that God must exist because the Bible says so is also very strange.

Yes; it is strange for the person who considers the bible as being a book full of lies. If, for example, you have other ways of determining the accuracy of the bible or the potency of its claims, then you wouldn't easily rule out its claim of a God.

Any spiritual book could ask you to worship cows for instance and if you were brought up in that culture you probably would.

Probably, but it would be wise to determine the merit of the book in question before accepting hook-line-and-sinker what it recommends. Furthermore, the fact that one book may claim that the cow is a god, does not rule out the potential vericity of another book which makes a different or even a contrary claim. You seem to love to rule things out by generalization and extrapolation.

Before Christianity came to Africa, Africans had a concept of God. Is that concept of God evil, better, worse etc than the Christian God?

Yes, they had a concept of God. Question is, was that concept right? How did they attain such knowledge?

I think we should be content to know that we know little about existence and origin. I believe however that over generations we move closer to the truth. Would be nice to read less of the condescending "I know the truth and you know nothing" statements. Cheers.

Sorry, YOU know little about existence and origin. Yet again, you have assumed that your reasoning holds true for every other person.
The question of the right approach to obtaining/attaining objective (absolute) truth is a valid question; and i do not believe that 'over generations' we move closer to it. That arguement (about the right approach) is a different one entirely.
As long as there remains the possibility of ABSOLUTE TRUTH existing somewhere, and some people are privy to such knowledge and others aren't, then statements such as "I know the truth and you don't" would always be made.
It is a wonder though that you do not realize that through you post, you have indirectly (and inevitably i must add) made the statement you eventually denounced. Cheers.

The fanatical assertion of the existence of God is as inimical to true human interelation and development as the fanatical assertion of the non-existence of God. Whether God exists and is worthy of worship or not is a biased opinion; not that there's anything wrong with biased opi ions. What would the world be without them and as Oscar Wilde as said "All opinions are biased and any unbiased opinion is useless".

It is, in general terms, unimportant to me whether anyone believes in the existence of God or not. I believe in a superior power, I do not believe that God exists; I KNOW that a superior power exists beyond me. Don't ask me to prove it; I can't. There is no empirical evidence that God or such superior power exists. But remember, you cannot also prove, empirically, that God or a suoerior power does not exist.

What's the sense in all this? once again we are seeking that which drives us apart rather than that which draws us together. Please not that I am actually perfectly irreligious; though brought up as a christian I left the \church 14 years ago and my life has been better for it. But that's my story and that of another will naturally be different. That this has worked for me is no guarantee that it will work for someone else. I have found my and not the. There are many paths that lead to God. Claiming God exclusively is a sign of smallness indeed.

Let us remember that all of the pains and destruction that humans have inflicted on other humans largely come from one source: those that, while holding a belief refuse others the right to hold a contrary one.

May it please the cosmic to continue to grant us all wisdom and understanding.

Peace Profound.

some people have eyes, they look, but they do not see. may God open your eyes that you see him.

@ ricadelide
Thanks for replying. First the point of my post was not to prove whether there is God or not. I have not actually said at any point in my post that a Creator does not exist. What I believe is that it might be out of our (sorry my   cognitive powers to have a proper perception of God. The existing religious books seem to deal more in a concept of spirituality as they probably should. Hence I can understand the message and lessons in the Bible but I certainly do not take it as a literal book that can be criticised in a scientific manner.

Now what I actually don't agree with some peoples "proof" of God's existence based on their own subjective experience. This is like when people say "I know God exists because I have believed in Christ and read the Bible and I have seen the power of God in my life". My argument is this is a spiritual experience, other religious people of different beliefs may share similar experiences. So you may as far as your life say yes definitely God exists, but that does not make it a universal truth. By that I mean your belief is no proof of the existence of God.

Yes you are right in saying that the God you believe in may exist, but your reasoning may be based on personal experience that could be intepreted differently by someone of a different disposition. So isn't it possible that you see things that way due to factors like upbringing, exposure to certain emotional stimuli, predispostion towards religion. Would love to read your comments again.

Tasma:

@ ricadelide
Thanks for replying. First the point of my post was not to prove whether there is God or not. I have not actually said at any point in my post that a Creator does not exist.

Ok, i understand. Thanks for your nice rejoinder as well.

What I believe is that it might be out of our (sorry my    cognitive powers to have a proper perception of God. The existing religious books seem to deal more in a concept of spirituality as they probably should. Hence I can understand the message and lessons in the Bible but I certainly do not take it as a literal book that can be criticised in a scientific manner.

Pardon me for scrutinizing your premises in detail – believe me, I didn’t intend to write this long.
In your second statement you seem to draw a contrast – although you didn’t specifically say so, you seemed to allude that religious books tend to dwell on spirituality but do little or nothing to advance our perception of God. While I might agree with you to an extent that an ordinary human’s cognitive powers may not be able to attain an accurate perception of God, I need to make some clarifications as far my understanding of the subject goes.
If there is a supreme being (which, I assume is an issue you aren’t contesting), considering that we do not physically see that being, any knowledge of that being that can be attained is such as that being chooses to reveal of himself, in other words, truth as regards (a) God cannot arise from man, it has to arise from God – if you want me to, I can dwell on this point in more detail for it is very crucial. Thus there’s is a need for revelation of God to man, in order for man to perceive Him.
By default, the creator cannot be under the spec of observation of / by the creature – except the creator chooses such – either way, there has to be something that God does or reveals before man can know him. And even if man were to dwell merely at the stage of the former (ie observation of his acts) then there remains the possibility of perception error, because actions can be misinterpreted. Thus the point still remains that God has to reveal himself.
Furthermore, you tried to make the point that our collective progression as humans would ultimately lead us to a position of greater understanding as regards issues relating to the divine. Concerning such a premise, I differ considerably. By definition (as I outlined above) man’s efforts – largely independent of and in defiance to God – can not lead him (even as collective humanity) to understanding absolute, universal truths – he may theorize, he may posit models and all, but lending him more time and collective effort only adds to his problems rather than solves them – the best man can do is delude himself; by accepting as true something which appears to be true and seems to fit all the observations but yet is false. Even if in all his theorizing he stumbles on truth, he cannot be sure of it – for absolute certainty is beyond him – and thus the ‘truth’ is unprofitable to him.

That said, the question then is, if that God reveals Himself, would that revelation be beyond man’s cognition – I mean would it be hard for us to understand what God has revealed about Himself? Would the God be too complex for us to know and relate to?
Again, that is one of the places where I differ. Granted, our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to be known about such a being – we cannot even grasp all there is to be known about the universe – we can however understand enough of this God for us to be able to relate with Him. We should be able to know how he would act or not act in certain situations, to know what delights him and what doesn’t etcetera. There are some basic levels of mutual perception and understanding that is requisite to relationship between two parties – and IMO, we can (and perhaps do) possess such knowledge. In my opinion, God’s revelation of Himself is such that we can, by His help, understand and if possible, to a certain extent, “contain”.

All that said however, my main thrust is this; this God (that I know from the bible and experience) wants to reveal himself, he wants to be known, he wants man to relate to him. He has shown this by the grandeur of creation, by the extreme complexity of biological creatures, by the sanctity of the human life and so on. I used to ask myself – do we really need the universe to be so huge, the creatures to be so diverse, the flora and fauna to be so intricately designed and, yet, in the face of all this, that man’s life be so fleeting yet so valuable, for him to be so inconspicuous yet so important? The paradoxes abound and we can learn from them. The most important thing though that I think we can learn is that God desires that, in the grandeur of the immediate environment upon which we are thrust, we would crave to want to know Him. The craving of man is met by the willingness of God.
The problem I believe usually arises when we do not understand the aforementioned; that God has to reveal Himself and that, if we are sure that revelation is of Him, we have to accept it. However, if as a man, you choose to strive independent of God to sustain or rather quench your thirst for meaning, then God is inconsequential to such a one and he can be left to his own folly.
Now if on the other hand, then, there are people who have found that revelation and confirmed it in practice, if there occurs instances where the need has met with the provision, can we then say – at least in the case of those people – that “it is out of (their) cognitive powers to have a proper perception of God”? No – that statement is false. It is within their - and perhaps every man’s - cognitive powers to have a proper perception of God, as long as that perception comes from a revelation of God himself and is proved true in their experience. However, that quest cannot be forced upon every man, nor can every man be pressured upon to accept the revelation that is available, thus, ultimately, the question or issue of God is subjective or perhaps I should say it is personal – but that does not mean that that which is true for an individual is not or cannot be true for all.

All that said again, from your third statement I want to infer something you didn’t explicitly state; you seem to mean that – fine, the bible makes all sorts of claims, but how can we be sure that those claims are true. Although, the scientific approach is a good way to scrutinize things, it’s not the only way. There are other ways of testing the validities of claims, and in the case of the bible, I dare say that you can evaluate the claims of the bible to see if they are true. In fact, I think the bible requires them, in so far as they are done with the aim of finding truth – because one can always reach any conclusion from any book if one isn’t fair and objective. As the bible claims to be the word of God, observing its claims by itself is a first step i.e. checking to see if the revelation within the bible is self-sustaining and consistent – these are things that can be done. Beyond that, and in a more relevant manner, the Word of God can be ‘tested’ in experience i.e. one can take the said promises of God and see if God, as He claims, acts consistently with his promise. If that is done with the right understanding of what God will and will not do (again as revealed), one can get to a place of assurance in knowing that a particular account of God is true and verifiable in experience.
Lastly, true; the bible isn't all literal. There are many things that are figurative in the bible - but the fact is; many things in the bible are also literal. Cheers .

Now what I actually don't agree with some peoples "proof" of God's existence based on their own subjective experience. This is like when people say "I know God exists because I have believed in Christ and read the Bible and I have seen the power of God in my life". My argument is this is a spiritual experience, other religious people of different beliefs may share similar experiences. So you may as far as your life say yes definitely God exists, but that does not make it a universal truth. By that I mean your belief is no proof of the existence of God.

Hopefully I wouldn’t write such a long piece now. Let me come straight all at once – subjective belief can never be ‘proof’ of anything.
The issue of ‘proving’ God’s existence is one I don’t really try to indulge myself in. Strictly speaking, it is hard if not impossible for one person to prove God’s existence to another person especially if the object is not willing to entertain the possibility of God’s existence. It becomes even more complicated when one thinks of what the object might be willing to accept as “proof” for God’s existence – the answer to this would vary as much as there are queries. Amazing as it may sound, some people still entertain the notion that we physical humans are an object of each other’s imagination and thus not real – thus to them, that human beings exist is not a proven fact. However, we can discountenance such extremes.
In the case you mentioned, the question that should be answered is; is what the person claimed true? Is it true that the said one experienced something supernatural? If it is, then there has to be an explanation for that event that goes beyond the subjective experience of that person ie there has to be a universal (or at least an objective) explanation for the subjective experience. Now if the one with the experience goes further to give his own explanation, you as an observer, who has not experienced such might not accept his explanation – it is even probable the person has no explanation, that however does not rule out the need for a universal explanation, again, if the experience is true.
Ruling out the validity of the experience based on the fact that other people (albeit with different mindsets – being, in this case, different religions) have experienced the same and yet proffer differing views on the experience is not a valid way of ruling things out. One has to first show that it is indeed the same experience that they all share, and even if that is shown, one has to entertain the possibility of perception error – in which at least one of them could be right and the others are falsely interpreting what they experienced. Pardon me to use a biblical example – in Acts 9, Saul and some others had a spiritual experience. Paul had a complete experience – he saw a light and saw Jesus and heard him, but the others, who were with him, heard the sound but did not see anyone. If the latter decided to found a religion based on their experience – their experience being true – they would still be false in their interpretation of that experience because they did not have the full (or the correct) revelation of / concerning the Truth in/of that experience. Got my point? Beyond that though, the universality of a truth does not necessitate acceptance of that truth – it still boils down to the willingness of the person to accept the validity of the claim.
However, that said, I believe there are other, albeit more objective (and collective) approaches that can lead us to conclusions in which the existence of God is indeed necessitated; several arguments have been posited – design, cosmological, moral, ontological, transcendental etcetera which in most cases are consistent with the rules of logic (which we all can relate to) and the fair person I believe can find them sufficient.

Yes you are right in saying that the God you believe in may exist, but your reasoning may be based on personal experience that could be intepreted differently by someone of a different disposition. So isn't it possible that you see things that way due to factors like upbringing, exposure to certain emotional stimuli, predispostion towards religion. Would love to read your comments again.

I think I’ve addressed many of the points here already. So having said all those, I guess you can make inferences as to what does it for me in believing that God exists, I’ve mentioned many – however, I’ve not mentioned the most important one – probably because it might not be easy to discuss / explain – and that has to do with the capacity for absolute knowledge. My knowledge of God is spiritual; and true spiritual knowledge is absolute i.e. there exists the ability to know things with certainty; this is in sharp contrast with mere mental knowledge which only deals with probabilities. In other words, God has the ability to make man absolutely certain of Him; and that is what really does it for me. Again, I wouldn’t offer this as an argument – only as an answer to a query. However, like I was still discussing with an Indian colleague in the lab today, the God-question is one that is innate – there is a universal, subjective quest for God – it can be suppressed or nurtured either by the individual, by environment and so on – but ab initio, it had been there . Cheers.

Whenever someone claims not to believe in God at all, look behind the claim.

You will always discover one abominable sin or the other which he/she is not willing to let go of.

disbelieve at your own loss

G.O.D
Government of Division

They gave us belief and took our land. Now we are all divided into different belief.

Hey, what denomination did Jesus belong too? Was he pentecostal, Jehovah witness, Baptist?

See how these white people have us worshipping their image of a blond haired, blue eyed being.

So If the son of God is white, is God white then?

[b]@Poster

We are already too many going to Heaven to meet GOD, JESUS AND THE ANGELS so you are absolutely free to believe in stone, plants or Fish. Goodluck

skyone:

We are already too many going to Heaven to meet GOD, JESUS AND THE ANGELS so you are absolutely free to believe in stone, plants or Fish. Goodluck

Lol . . . bros, the second part of your statement is allowed; but that first part isn't biblically justified. There aren't too many people going to heaven,
Matt. 7:14
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it

Beyond that, even if the whole world were to be saved, God would gladly welcome anyone and everyone provided they have 'washed their robes in the blood of the lamb'. The caveat is that Baba won't lower his standards.
2Pet. 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

You don see am bros? God wants EVERYONE to be saved. Cheers

There is only a couple things that don't make sense at all. Noah's ark is fake, no boat on the mountain it was said to be on, a boat of that size would collapse on itself, you would have to be impossibly good with animals to get them on that boat, there would be no food or fresh water after 40 days and 40 nights of salt water over all the plants and lakes, it would basically be a barin waste land, no evidence of a massive flood like that, and its impossible to have a flood like that anyway because there is not enough water in the entire world to do that, all there technology from that time would of been destroyed, there would only be one type of colored people which is white. THIS IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE FULL STOP. Adam and Eve, if Eve didn't eat the forbidden fruit no death, so that is completely impractical because there would be over population that means there will be no food or water and probably low air and every thing would die, it would be impossible for your children to have children with each other so the first humans would of been about four. 2 males and 2 females. It says in the bible in the bigining god created Earth bla bla bla fast forward, and god created humans, but god couldn't of had created humans because it says in the bible that after created the Earth he created humans and the Earth was created about i don't know 5 billion years ago and the earth then was a pile of molten rocks and humans were only around for about a couple of million years and the first human like things where homoerectus and they weren't modern humans so god didn't create humans evolution did. Unless he planned for evolution to happen , but how do we know if we are humans yet? evolution doesn't stop, but we always will be in the category of humans. Unless far into the future a radical change in the Earth or some thing like that happens.

Every thing else i can think of about the bible is true.

The Bible makes me to Understand and i quote < the fool says there is no GOD>, nuff said

Shut up!!! god is real!! if he wasnt real then we all wouldnt be asking this question. there is some thing called the string theory it proves god is real some where in another demention, there is more than width length and height. they are the three dementions but there are more about 9. so we cant see god even if he was 1 cm in front of us, that means the kindom if god is blocked off from our world. That also means that people who see spirits and ghosts are crazy but how did god communicate with the people in the bible? The same with hell. hell cant come into our world ether. im not a pro but i think im right with the stuff i said with the string theory. look it up on google:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=the+string+theory&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

god is real

Just be patient. When you die you will see Him.

Then you can question Him to your hearts content.

@ poster, sorry cant help

Mr. nferyn it is not God that allow you to go to hell fire, it is you that going to choose wheither hell or kingdom of God.
The Bibel Says Who so ever believe in Him(Jesus) should not perish but have everlasting life. and the bibel says who so ever that does not believe Him shall have their porsion in hell fire.
So my dear brother to enter into the kingdom of God will cause you something and that thing is to run away from SIN. with sin you can please God and God did not like sin but love sinner that repent.
What are does thing you are doing that did not please God you better drop it now before it can be too late for you.
GOD LOVES YOU.
AND HE READY FOR FORGIVE YOU ALL YOUR SINS.

SHALOM!

mattymun:

Shut up!!! god is real!! if he wasnt real then we all wouldnt be asking this question. there is some thing called the string theory it proves god is real some where in another demention, there is more than width length and height. they are the three dementions but there are more about 9. so we can't see god even if he was 1 cm in front of us, that means the kindom if god is blocked off from our world. That also means that people who see spirits and ghosts are crazy but how did god communicate with the people in the bible? The same with hell. hell can't come into our world ether. im not a pro but i think im right with the stuff i said with the string theory. look it up on google:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=the+string+theory&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

No, string theory doesn't prove the existence of God: it simply gives the idea of a deity yet another place to hide.

Well I don't believe in religion anymore, rather I believe in the concept of an existing deity beyond our eye's focal point, not microscopic but of higher should i say existence?

You see I treat religion as philosophy to safeguard human harmony and respect, but something bothers me with their interpretation of God. It goes into the relativity of prayers, miracles (what i call magic), or things in that context to attest for the existence of God.

I for one look at it from a different angle. I see God as my creator, because there has not been one single evidence produced by any research to prove that humans don't have a creator nor a source to their existence. I think the rational behind that is pretty simple. The concept of God should fall between the understanding that every single object and substance in this world has a source, it just doesn't come out of emptiness, there must be a reaction. In the case of a child, the father and the mother, hormonal reaction, and some special tingle from an existence beyond the understanding of human intellectuality.

Nferyn,

I don't think anyone can prove the existence of God anymore than we can actually prove scientific theories on the origin of the universe or even our planet.

I think there is some causality to proving the existence of things - in that in order for me to prove that A exists, I must have come into existence before A.

Now of course, I can probably prove you exist so that argument seems weak on the surface, but later today I'll do some research on that idea.

lol

you are goin straight to helll if you are talkin about God, Who created the earth ask yourself that question and people that say that the world was created by a big bang are fools.

you are goin straight to helll if you are talkin about God, Who created the earth ask yourself that question and people that say that the world was created by a big bang are fools.

zeus created the earth. now prove me wrong.

bawomolo:

zeus created the earth. now prove me wrong.

I'll prove you wrong, Zeus didnt create the world. The tooth fairy is god and he created the world especially your teeth. Cant you give credit to the almighty tooth fairy that gave you the opportunity to chew things and smile?

Your a very ungrafeful person Bawomolo, lol

hahhaha tooth fairy and zeus are you drunk or somethin

NO MAN CAN FIGHT FOR GOD, HIM ALONE HAVE THE POWER TO FIGHT FOR HIMSELF, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD, PLEASE CHANGE YOUR THOUGHT NOW YOU STILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO SO,YOUR LIFE IS ENOUGH AVIDENCE THAT THERE IS GOD,

@poster,

your eternity shall be spent in HELL.Pls there is still time for you to
    recognise your Creator. HELL IS REAL

religionous people use hell to create fear to humanity so that they can be obedient to ther will i do not beleve in heaven or hell even if heaven is true i do not went to go there i love this world this world can be a pradise death is hell it is a spritual punishment for all our sin if we die today we are still coming back home ,this world is our home

God is a puzzle ,we can speculate that God exist but nobody can judge it is true