nicetohave:

in your opinion then those that have something to say about him speak falsehood?

No, there is just no way to know whether or not it is true or false. A contradicting accoun can be just as true or just as false. No way of knowing

you give me something to think about......do you speak here for yourself or is it a general statement?

nicetohave:

you give me something to think about.do you speak here for yourself or is it a general statement?

Actually both, this follows from the assumption that God is omniscient. If he is omniscient, then that contradicts with free will, unless his omniscience is of another kind entirely than our conception of omniscience, but in that case we cannot possibly understand the property omniscience, it becomes meaningless for us humans. The same goes for the other properties of God.
I personally believe that, if God were to exist, it would be impossible to have any knowledge of him. On the other hand, I don not believe in the existence of God, but that belief is not absolute (i.e. I acknowledge the fact the God might exist, but then he would be very different from all the conceptions of all humans of him)

nferyn:

Actually both, this follows from the assumption that God is omniscient. If he is omniscient, then that contradicts with free will, unless his omniscience is of another kind entirely than our conception of omniscience, but in that case we cannot possibly understand the property omniscience, it becomes meaningless for us humans. The same goes for the other properties of God.
I personally believe that, if God were to exist, it would be impossible to have any knowledge of him. On the other hand, I don not believe in the existence of God, but that belief is not absolute (i.e. I acknowledge the fact the God might exist, but then he would be very different from all the conceptions of all humans of him)

It is not an assumption that God is omniscient, because he tells the end from the beginning and he declares to us what will happen in the end of times...........if perhaps a God might exist, have you cared to search to know this even as you have done diligently the work of science? if you would discard the bible, perhaps have you sought other means to find this God if he so exists?

Omniscience is one of the properties as declared by the great monotheistc religions. I reason from that point onward, but it does not mean that I accept that assumption. I use reason and evidence to give meaning to the world around me. The concept of a supreme being does not fit in that picture.
I am an athiest, I lack the belief in the concept of a supreme being. What would make me change my stance is conclusive evidence or proof of that being. I am incapable of faith; I could possibly believe in it, but not on faith alone.
I have read the Bible and found it lacking as a source to give meaning to the world or my life, as it contradicts too much knowledge I have that is based on belief in the evidence of science. On top of that the Christian concept of God is also full of logical contradictions that need to be explained aways by using epistemiological tricks (such as ascribing God's omniscience to be of a different kind than ours).
This is why I remain atheist unless someone brings me evidence of the existence of God.

fair statement on the surface, but not enough to justify your unbelief in God..........i pray you find what you need.

nicetohave:

fair statement on the surface, but not enough to justify your unbelief in God..........i pray you find what you need.

That's another sweeping assertion, nicetohave. I am in no need to justify anything, but I do appreciate your concern

Let God bring u d evidence u so badly need.
Like every researcher u must do it yourself!
If u have the same determination to discover it, as u affirm your view,
you'll get d evidence by yourself? It's one-on-one!
Sing HU today 4 20minutes at bedtime.
Goodluck 4 d courage to meet your evidence!

Lifexpress, let me tell you a story.
I was born in an atheist household. the concept of God was completely alien to me. Later one, when I went to primary, I saw some kids were going to their weekly hour of religion class, they even did things like go to church. I found it quite funny and became interested in this thing they called God. I started to ask questions. I wanted to understand what they were talking about. Their answers however did not make any sense. Later on, I continued to do the same and started reading the Bible, church history and the like. I still didn't understand what that God character actually was, the only thing that changed was that the arguments became more sophisticated, just as my refutations of these arguments.

At adulthood I came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient proof for the existence of God, especially not for the Christian conception of God. Today I'm still open for the arguments in favor of the existence of God, but unfortunately, they are lacking because they require the one thing that I am incapable of: faith. They require that I accept things without evidence, only on authority. This is a grave insult of my intellect.

Your brief story is a true gift of love; which means any gift from life to you which you pass on to another!
Let me also share my own true story:
At twenty, I got so disappointed with the concept of God in my Catholic Church that I changed its order of worship and re-wrote its prayers to suit me. For example, the Lord's Prayer, I had noticed that few if anyone forgave others as easily as the prayer assumed. Not to mention that so few other christians used that right-way-to-pray anymore. 5years after in March 1980, I came into my office at a university hospital and on my desk was a bookmark from my new religion, it introduced the concept of dreams as a one-on-one contact time with the Holy Spirit. and how to Sing HU to meet this Life Force. In my heart and in my head I was already ready for a change, but I had been willing to wait for it to happen. I knew no other member of my religion in that city at the time. The rest is history.
Please accept my sympathy for your very strong feelings, but I can assure you that it's a first step to realizing that you are the Image & Likeness of God yourself.

@ lifexpress,

thank you for your insights. What I came to realise later in life is that your childhood and socialisation play a very important role in your basic outlook on life. During that time, you create an interpretative framework in your brain that allows you to make sense of the world around you. As you may know, certain thing (e.g. languages) become extremely difficult to learn or unlearn once you reach puberty.
I guess that also goes for the capacity to be religious or capability of accepting the supernatural. For me the experiental aspects of a God belief (things like feeling the spirit) absolutely make no sense at all. It might as well be an alien that is speaking to me.
The other possible aspects of a God belief (evidenctial indications of God's existence such as history, the Bible, etc) are so incoherent and rely so much on that conceptual, interpretative framework, that they are rather a strong indication against the existence of God than for the existence of God.

@ nferyn, I refer to yr conclusion!
I'd like to infer instead that it urges us to understand the goal of religion, beginning from the known.
What is the goal of religion? Should it be one that no one wishes to achieve?
Should death be a burden of fear or, like Saint Paul, can each of us also die daily?
I bet we may agree that every goal is one which will inspire even compel effort in particular direction.
So let me say that life is like a school of God, and the goal of religion is to train each and every child of God to be like God through direct and regular contact and curriculum. And not a one-off thing, to mention visible evidence of those who have achieved this goal already, plus the rest who are at varying stages learning and growing to reach it here and now. That is an evidence, I believe, you need now.
If you will, let me post-mail u a present, a book titled: [b][/b][i][/i]Those Wonderful ECK Masters, by Harold Klemp. It's an insight into hundreds and thousands of guardian angels, people like u & me, who have seen God and become godlike, living all around to teach the rest.

Fate is different from destiny but our fate sort of control our destiny. fate is believed to be the power that control our life events of which we don't have power over while destiny is what we believed to happen in our future. It's what we believe(fate) that predicts our future.

I believe in both and the reason; I can really say but I think it's because I believe there is God. Most scientist don't believe in fate because they don't believe there is God.

nikkylolly:

I believe in both and the reason; I can really say but I think it's because I believe there is God. Most scientist don't believe in fate because they don't believe there is God.

Actually, there are many scientists that do believe in God, ask our friend chrisd. Both are not mutually exclusive, but it does mean that their beliefs cannot be of the literalist fire-and-brimstone kind. If you are open, tolerant and look for meaning and context rather than obedience and blind faith, both can certainly co-exist.

nikkylolly:

Fate is different from destiny but our fate sort of control our destiny. fate is believed to be the power that control our life events of which we don't have power over while destiny is what we believed to happen in our future. It's what we believe(fate) that predicts our future.

I believe in both and the reason; I can really say but I think it's because I believe there is God. Most scientist don't believe in fate because they don't believe there is God.

some scientists, not [b]most.............[/b]nferyn's last comment is rather impressive i must say.

Thanks 4 d observation, nicetohave!
But please let me explain how fate and destiny are not different. Both are popular names for one of the four parts of a natural law which keep life moving. This rule of doer beware is called: cause & effect, or retributive justice, or what u sow u reap, or Karma.
When u are born - your skin color, parents, sex, tribe, appearance, family members and circumstances, interests including talent, relationships - these are determined by the accounting balancesheet of how u lived the pastlives. This is what fate you bring into a new life, and as you grow up into these conditions, you like some and you don't like some, but its your life. Your talents and interests are tools of your freewill to accept or not to accept the ones you do not like. It is how you can change your destiny or what fate-karma prescribes for you.
On a daily basis however, each day you face choices and take action, manage your thoughts and feelings and words. The karma in each case credits or debits u accordingly. This is daily-karma in your accounting ledger.
Depending on how u use your freewill, at the end of each life, there are surplusses where you sowed good and bad that you didn't payback. There are debits, eg. grave offences such as murder, and credits, eg. gracious gifts of love and service, which you have not settled through payback or receipts from those involved.
There are some whose settlement would require drastic changes in fortune and so need to be administered to you at a pace to recreate the exact same circumstances under which you did them to others. These issues are reserved in a ledger until circumstances are right; such as a sudden lottery win and sudden death/accident/incapacity. This is reserve-karma.
The balancesheet places the normal day-to-day debits and credits, at each end of life into the fate-karma for the next incarnation. Such that when you meet someone even for the first time, you can feel such love or hate without knowing where it came from because you have both met before.

nferyn:

Actually, there are many scientists that do believe in God, ask our friend chrisd. Both are not mutually exclusive, but it does mean that their beliefs cannot be of the literalist fire-and-brimstone kind. If you are open, tolerant and look for meaning and context rather than obedience and blind faith, both can certainly co-exist.

"both can co exist". Of course they do. In some healing lines like dramatherapy, they work together. But no matter how much they co-exist, you still don't get somethings when u think about it. Think about ways in which science n religion is similar, try to use both to answer some question you've been dying to get answers (e.g. some religion teaches, there would be day of reckoning- heaven n hell. Use both to answer this question"what happen after we all die? What happen to the entire universe? Did both provide an answer?) U might get some answers for the first few mins but afterwards, u sort of get confused n u just decided not to think about it anymore.

Of course, many scientist believe in God n also using it to answer their scientific questions by comparing their religious teachings with scientific researches. Take Galileo Galilei for example. He was a great scientist, trying to find some answers, trying to prove the co-existence of science n religion n he was also a devout catholic. People then, (leaders of church)think he shouldn't be using the church to prove his researches. They think he was underestimating God. So, he was given house arrest for the rest of his life n was banned from publishing further books.

I think when we think about science n religion, we just tend to ignore it because it took us too far in thinking. I think best thing to do is; offer our scientific believe when it's necessary n vice versa.

nicetohave:

some scientists, not most.............[/b]nferyn's last comment is rather impressive i must say.

[b]Most scientist here, means leading scientists like Galileo, Alexandre, Newton and so.on and scientist that believe in their works n those ffg their footsteps.

There are two problems in the co-existence of science and religion. It's not that they cannot exist together, but the relationship between the two beliefs will be problematic at least in some respects. Both problems try to limit the scope of science in one way or another. The core concept of any religion is faith, the belief in something without evidence, a belief that rests on prior acceptance of the basic premises of that religion.

1. The treatment of the religious source material (texts and tradition). You can read that material in two distinct ways. Either you take them at face value and consider them as a literal source of your religious conviction (e.g. the Bible is the literal word of God and all that is said in the Bible is correct), or you consider that material in an allegorical way, where you need to put it into context to understand the deeper meaning or message of that material. If you follow the first approach (like many protestant, fundamentalist churches do), you immediately come into conflict with science, because it is in direct contradiction with these texts. Some elaborate apologetic attempts have been tried to reason away those differences, but they always fail. Only people that don't have a clue about what science is about could be convinced by these arguments. Either that or they deliberately ignore the scientific findings.

2. There is an epistemological (source of knowledge) problem with bringing together faith and science. The application of reason in the real world requires a rational treatment of the available evidence in the natural world. By having faith in the principles of a religion, you accept these premises on authority. You remove them from rational scrutiny. In effect, you put a wall between those beliefs on faith and what reason can bring you to.
In effect, you limit the scope rationality. You are saying that rational thought cannot investigate these premises. This leads to the famous God-of-the -Gaps, a God that exists only there where science does not have the answers yet. Mind you, by taking that position, you are behaving irrational. This is exactly what many Christian scientists do and in most cases it doesn't cause any problems because their field of expertise does not overlap the domain of their God belief.

nferyn:

Mind you, by taking that position, you are behaving irrational. This is exactly what many Christian scientists do and in most cases it doesn't cause any problems because their field of expertise does not overlap the domain of their God belief.

And that was what I mean by;

I think best thing to do is; offer our scientific believe when it's necessary n vice versa.

nikkylolly:

I think when we think about science n religion, we just tend to ignore it because it took us too far in thinking. I think best thing to do is; offer our scientific believe when it's necessary n vice versa.

You need to define necessity here. You positions can mean a lot of things.

nikkylolly:

Most scientist here, means leading scientists like Galileo, Alexandre, Newton and so.on and scientist that believe in their works n those ffg their footsteps.

There was very little else to do in that time but believe. In face of the existence evidence at that time, it was a reasonable position to take. Most leading scientists nowadays are atheist or deists. There are very few theist scientists. This is only natural, as our knowledge increases, the gaps the God-of-the-gaps can hide in are getting smaller and smaller.

nikkylolly:

I think best thing to do is; offer our scientific believe when it's necessary n vice versa.

I do not see any necessity for religious beliefs. The only place where there could be place for it - of course in my opinion, don't take it for gospel - is in giving meaning to life. Science can and will tell you how, but it does not deal with the why question.

nferyn:

You need to define necessity here. You positions can mean a lot of things.
There was very little else to do in that time but believe. In face of the existence evidence at that time, it was a reasonable position to take. Most leading scientists nowadays are atheist or deists. There are very few theist scientists. This is only natural, as our knowledge increases, the gaps the God-of-the-gaps can hide in are getting smaller and smaller.

Depends on where u think your own beleive comes in.

nferyn:

I do not see any necessity for religious beliefs. The only place where there could be place for it - of course in my opinion, don't take it for gospel - is in giving meaning to life. Science can and will tell you how, but it does not deal with the why question.

U just dealt with the necessity question. "Science can and will tell u how but it does not deal with the why question".

nikkylolly:

Depends on where u think your own beleive comes in.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. My beliefs are firmly rooted in material evidence and rationality.

nikkylolly:

U just dealt with the necessity question. "Science can and will tell u how but it does not deal with the why question".

Indeed, but that does not, by default, mean that religion deals with it in a satisfactory manner.

FATE,DESTINY OR WHAT NOT, all i know is that whatever will be will be and whatever has been was meant to be.

i do agree wit u papermoon

There is nothing like Fate when the situation goes bacd, God never wants his children to experience tough times, Remember the lord says he wil no let us go through what he longs we cannot handle, Lets just say bad things happen cos we are at the wrong place at the wrong time, DONT BLAME God

yes I do

"Yes" because with fate you can pool dawn a mounting, if you have the fate that you will make it or you are going to get to the top, i promise you with fate you shall get there.

So with fate you can turn round everthing and ever situation.

Fate is the key of life.

@Poster

[b]I believe that God created us with a purpose and destiny.  I also believe that He has given us the key.  Meaning, our choices/free will determine whether we arrive to that purpose/destiny.  God has a perfect and permissive will.  From the very beginning God put Adam and Eve in a garden, gave His commands, their purpose (be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, ), and told them the consequences choosing to disobey.  (HIS PERFECT WILL). He could have not had the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right?  No, He left it at within reach.  They chose to disobey. (HIS PERMISSSIVE WILL). Why didn't He leave out that tree?  The gift of free choice and those choices will determine our destiny.  The word "IF" is a very small word but with great implications!!!!!  If you notice in the bible, whenever He gave a promise it was tied to an "IF".

For instance, how many wives would want their husbands to be in a world tempted by many woman and STILL choose to be faithful; without treats, spying, begging, munipulating him? But just out of his love for God, her, himself, and family. But if he chooses wrongly it hurts His whole life: marriage, family life, social standing, finances, etc.

In predestination, ppl forget the preceding words"For whom He (GOD) foreknew".  God in His omniscience knew and knows who would accept and who would reject Him.  He has planned accordingly.  He also knew Adam/Evil would should wrong and later be sorry.  Therefore, He pre-planned Jesus to die for and save those who have godly sorrow and repent. 

Romans 8:29: For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Romans 8:29:  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren