Author Topic: God ? (Read 8505 times)

Frogm4n · « **Reply #60 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:23:32 PM »

god is just the personification of a society as a whole.

so nope. I believe we just are not intelligent enough to truly grasp the universe. no need to make up lies to fulfill the desire to understand it.

Mike_2851 · « **Reply #61 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:37:32 PM »

Short answer-YES, not only in the possibility but the exsistance of.

Long answer-Never mind, This thread is full, so far of interesting view points. Some of which I believe are very clouded. But that's my perogitive-OOPS, there is that free will thing again.

This should get interesting as it goes along.

Fatty · « **Reply #62 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:38:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Does that make "Washington DC" or "Robert Wagner" religious references as well?

It makes them proper nouns, refering to a specific town or person (or diety).

hyena426 · « **Reply #63 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:51:56 PM »

Quote

This should get interesting as it goes along.

maybe,,but i bet it will turn into a 300 page monster about how stupid some one is for believing in god,,or how stupid some one is for believing in big bang theroy<~~both views can be picked apart till there nothing left,,too many holes,,too many unanswered questions for any rational discussion on this subject,,allways gets too twisted and long winded{good luck} hehehe

Arlo · « **Reply #64 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:56:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fatty
It makes them proper nouns, refering to a specific town or person (or diety).

Precisely.

So why should it be assumed that anyone who refers to God as a proper noun is adhereing to religious doctrine by default? Perhaps they are merely professing their personal faith. Truth be told they may not even be doing that. I've seen the word capitalized by those arguing against the existance of a creator before (intentional? subliminal? Who knows. *ShruG*). One may assume much. Many do.

WldThing · « **Reply #65 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:57:09 PM »

The answer to the original question is .. YES, there is always a "possibility" for anything. No sense in denying..

Ive had far too many instances where i have been saved by a "higher" someone from possible death.. I have come to the realization some time ago when something strange occured to me in my own living room, but no sense going into it now, since hardly anyone ever believes ya

Nonetheless i still believe in the big bang theory, etc.. Human beings evolved from the "monkey". I guess i tend to look at every different point of view before i finalize a decision..

Fatty · « **Reply #66 on:** February 07, 2004, 03:10:30 PM »

In trolling for a response, Nuke opened the argument as if he were speaking of any belief in any entity(ies) that could be completely or indirectly behind the universe as we know it. In asking the question though, he has already restricted it to Judeo-Christian theology. Even if given as much leeway as possible it still restricts to monotheistic religions (referring to a single God instead of a god among others).

It's a pretty common argument method among creationists, arguing for openmindedness from the scientific community but not even acknowledging other religious beliefs in that argument.

Arlo · « **Reply #67 on:** February 07, 2004, 03:50:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fatty
In trolling for a response, Nuke opened the argument as if he were speaking of any belief in any entity(ies) that could be completely or indirectly behind the universe as we know it. In asking the question though, he has already restricted it to Judeo-Christian theology. Even if given as much leeway as possible it still restricts to monotheistic religions (referring to a single God instead of a god among others).

It's a pretty common argument method among creationists, arguing for openmindedness from the scientific community but not even acknowledging other religious beliefs in that argument.

God ... you sound like a lawyer.

Eagler · « **Reply #68 on:** February 07, 2004, 05:53:02 PM »

instead of faith, many have shrinks instead...

Nod · « **Reply #69 on:** February 07, 2004, 06:04:22 PM »

Yes, All i have to say is that Geologist have seen proof of a flood of the world dated back to around Noahs supposed time. Also, some where in Nepal they think they have found the remains of Noah's Ark (i'm not shure of the exact location)

Fatty · « **Reply #70 on:** February 07, 2004, 06:15:15 PM »

They've also discovered Troy, but that doesn't mean we should believe Thetis actually dipped Achilles into the Styx making him (almost, except for her shortsightedness) invincible.

Mythology is always told to explain or enhance real events.

NUKE · « **Reply #71 on:** February 07, 2004, 07:21:08 PM »

Quote

It's a pretty common argument method among creationists, arguing for openmindedness from the scientific community but not even acknowledging other religious beliefs in that argument. [/B]

I have not even come close to mentioning a religious aspect.

It's very simple... I am saying that a belief that a God created everything is just as plausible as a belief that everything created itself. Really that simple. To say that a God is not even possible seems a little closed minded.

Now tell me what religion I am talking about again?

Fatty · « **Reply #72 on:** February 07, 2004, 08:18:03 PM »

If you're using proper grammar, a christian god or at least a single god as opposed to multiple gods.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #73 on:** February 07, 2004, 08:24:35 PM »

If there is a God, then which one is it? Is it "God", is it "Allah", is it "Budda", etc? Are they one in the same? I'd hate to go all through life, die, then get to wherever and find out I picked the wrong one.

<----Recovering Catholic, been clean 15 years now.

Munkii · « **Reply #74 on:** February 07, 2004, 08:40:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raubvogel
If there is a God, then which one is it? Is it "God", is it "Allah", is it "Budda", etc? Are they one in the same? I'd hate to go all through life, die, then get to wherever and find out I picked the wrong one.

<----Recovering Catholic, been clean 15 years now.

Budda shouldn't be covered in this discussion, Buddah is not omnipotent, nor is he a diety. He was a philosopher, and true buddists realize that. There are other buddists that worship him as a diety as well as Kuan Ying beside him.