Evolution vs Creationism---Is there a God? Or is it all just random chance?

Phantasmal said:
I am not an Omnipotent god. I don’t require my children to obey/love me or face eternal damnation.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you that! I asked you a simple parenting question. You know damn good and well you had to answer ever question yes if you couldn't say yes then you would be a rotten parent!
The only difference is God's love or disapointment in his children (us) is eternal. Your body is a vessel containing your sole. The body dies but the soul goes on.
God does not condemn you to hell you do that to yourself.
 
I can already tell you a fact- People do things for only one of two reasons.

Everything we do in life comes down to- We either do it to gain pleasure from it- Or- We do it to prevent some kind of pain.

Sorry, but that is about as advanced as the human mind can be in terms of motivation to do or believe in something.

So let me ask you about yourselves- Are you Religious because Religion gives you some kind of pleasure- Or are you religious because you are trying to prevent some kind of pain?

To be fair to those who are non-believers, I'll ask you the same question- Are you a non-believer because it brings you some kind of pleasure- Or do you disbelieve in religion to try and prevent some kind of pain?

Just answer it for yourself- AND DON'T ALLOW ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK FOR YOU OR TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK!

WHAT A CONCEPT! GOING THROUGH LIFE WITHOUT ALLOWING OTHERS- THAT HAVE NO PROOF- ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BOUT A GOD- TO TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK!

THINK FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE- and what does what you think have to do with what anyone else thinks?
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
I can already tell you a fact- People do things for only one of two reasons.

Everything we do in life comes down to- We either do it to gain pleasure from it- Or- We do it to prevent some kind of pain.

Sorry, but that is about as advanced as the human mind can be in terms of motivation to do or believe in something.

So let me ask you about yourselves- Are you Religious because Religion gives you some kind of pleasure- Or are you religious because you are trying to prevent some kind of pain?

To be fair to those who are non-believers, I'll ask you the same question- Are you a non-believer because it brings you some kind of pleasure- Or do you disbelieve in religion to try and prevent some kind of pain?

Just answer it for yourself- AND DON'T ALLOW ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK FOR YOU OR TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK!

WHAT A CONCEPT! GOING THROUGH LIFE WITHOUT ALLOWING OTHERS- THAT HAVE NO PROOF- ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BOUT A GOD- TO TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK!

THINK FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE- and what does what you think have to do with what anyone else thinks?
Click to expand...

Good point. I believe you already know the reason Christians believe.
 
Dark Soul said:
ou've never taken a course in philosophy, have you?

You weren't paying attention then.

It is very possible to prove that something exists without physical evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is called inductive reasoning.

Albert Einstein demonstrated the theory of special relativity through thought experiment. And Arthur Eddington validated Einstein's theory by measuring the warping of star light.

Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the other Christian philosophers did not use inductive reasoning to demonstrate a distinction between justified belief and faith. They attempted to use the Aristotelian method of deduction, working from first principles, backwards towards a justification of scripture and faith. That is not scientific proof, and that is not even touching on how problematic the word "proof" is in a scientific context.

Even Descartes’ “proof of God” argument, while a testament to his intellect, does not pass muster for scientific reasoning and induction.

We look to Francis Bacon and his heirs for inductive reasoning and the modern scientific method. While I have substantial respect for the epistemological reasoning of Augustine, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Descartes, and other Christian philosophers, I refrain from giving them kudos for "proving" anything using the inductive reasoning of the modern scientific method.
 
Phantasmal said:
This has always been my question, why did an Omnipotent being need worship from flawed humans? Why does he compete with Satan? It’s never made sense to me.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense because the whole idea was made up by human beings. Just because it's been around for a few thousand years doesn't make it any more true. It just means that we humans are gullible and have an innate desire to believe in something we believe is bigger and stronger and more powerful than we are.

Hence TRE45ON as IMPOTUS. :laugh:
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
I can already tell you a fact- People do things for only one of two reasons.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but will answer your other question. Good post, btw.

To be fair to those who are non-believers, I'll ask you the same question- Are you a non-believer because it brings you some kind of pleasure- Or do you disbelieve in religion to try and prevent some kind of pain?
Click to expand...

I disbelieve in the mainstream religions because they hold no meaning for me. To me they are empty and do nothing to enlighten me and my connection to this place we share. I've seen that many derive comfort from their faith(s), especially when going through hard times. I've seen ppl inspired by their faith(s) to do great deeds. Have also seen the opposite.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, it is called inductive reasoning.

Albert Einstein demonstrated the theory of special relativity through thought experiment. And Arthur Eddington validated Einstein's theory by measuring the warping of star light.

Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the other Christian philosophers did not use inductive reasoning to demonstrate a distinction between justified belief and faith. They attempted to use the Aristotelian method of deduction, working from first principles, backwards towards a justification of scripture and faith. That is not scientific proof, and that is not even touching on how problematic the word "proof" is in a scientific context.

Even Descartes’ “proof of God” argument, while a testament to his intellect, does not pass muster for scientific reasoning and induction.

We look to Francis Bacon and his heirs for inductive reasoning and the modern scientific method. While I have substantial respect for the epistemological reasoning of Augustine, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Descartes, and other Christian philosophers, I refrain from giving them kudos for "proving" anything using the inductive reasoning of the modern scientific method.
Click to expand...

So? Not everything is physical.
 
Dark Soul said:
So? Not everything is physical.
Click to expand...

So it sounds like you have never taken a college level philosophy class despite mocking Mott about it, and I get the distinct impression you do not understand the history of science nor intellectual history and thought
 
Eagle-Eye said:
I didn't ask you that! I asked you a simple parenting question. You know damn good and well you had to answer ever question yes if you couldn't say yes then you would be a rotten parent!
The only difference is God's love or disapointment in his children (us) is eternal. Your body is a vessel containing your sole. The body dies but the soul goes on.
God does not condemn you to hell you do that to yourself.
Click to expand...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top