Deity Existence

[Vasu]

I think my entire point is getting lost again as feared.

No one can prove that God does not exists. I state that the Bible shows proof of God's existence.

Okay. The Bible states that god is omnipotent and omniscient. I have just proved that they are incompatible. There'a a discrepancy right there.

Why does it matter if I believe. If you really believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs what use is this thread.

No. I do not believe that everybody is entitled to their own beliefs. Was Hitler entitled to his view that Jews were an inferior race? Are racists entitled to their view that blacks are inferior?

Actually, come to think of it, everybody is entitled to their own beliefs as long as they keep it to their own backyard. If Hitler hated Jews in his mind but never did anything about it, I would be perfectly fine with it. But religion constantly enters, influences and juggles with state policy which influences everyone. This is completely unacceptable. I am simply asking the reason for your beliefs, and so far, I have not seen an explanation which satisfies me.

I contend that this thread was not meant for a discussion, but to state that there is no God and if you dare say there is then you have to give proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But no one has to prove that God does not exist.

Once again, this thread was made to see the reasons for the beliefs of both sides.



EDIT:

i'll restate what i said earlier: Original sin is seperate from personal sin. once again:

"Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.[7]" -Wikipedia.

There is still a difference between me and Adam. Why am I not given a chance to be holy at birth?

As for the stone, i guess it would be impossible since nothing can overpower God, not even his own creation.

So there is something god cannot do?

And yes, he could, but his decisions are always right the first time since he's all knowing and all wise, therefore his first decision is right.

For the last time, how "could" he? If he can, or could, then he is not all knowing. If he can't or couldn't then he is not all powerful.

[Jikanu]

Okay. The Bible states that god is omnipotent and omniscient. I have just proved that they are incompatible. There'a a discrepancy right there.



No. I do not believe that everybody is entitled to their own beliefs. Was Hitler entitled to his view that Jews were an inferior race? Are racists entitled to their view that blacks are inferior?

Actually, come to think of it, everybody is entitled to their own beliefs as long as they keep it to their own backyard. If Hitler hated Jews in his mind but never did anything about it, I would be perfectly fine with it. But religion constantly enters, influences and juggles with state policy which influences everyone. This is completely unacceptable. I am simply asking the reason for your beliefs, and so far, I have not seen an explanation which satisfies me.



Once again, this thread was made to see the reasons for the beliefs of both sides.

Im pretty sure i showed a way in which they could be compatible. you kinda ignored all my previous posts on that topic in there...

And in some ways, it's not religion, but common sense that goes into politics. And you're assuming everyone in the church feels the same way. Plenty are ok with gay rights, for example.

If NO personal beliefs were in politics, how would they exist? There would be no reason to run, no reason to pay taxes, no stances on any position; religion just influences moral values. i dont see how there's anything wrong with that. It's a moral line you should draw, not a personal-social one.

EDIT: posted before i saw your post.

No, it's more of that he can do too much, not a lack of being able to do something.


It's the nature of sin. not any choice made by anyone. Original sin passes down from person to person. it's of no personal fault of anyone.

And i answer you one last time, they can co-exist. He CAN change it, but he knows he wont. Therefore, he wouldnt be violating anything. he CAN but WONT. he knows he never would and wouldnt have the reason to, therefore, he CAN but knows he would never have to.

[Ralath]

You're looking at him in an incorrect way.

You're looking at him as if he decides to control our lives; but you're leaving out one key decision that he made while making us:

He gave us free will. When you choose to do wrong, is God at fault? or is it you? he gave us freedom. He understands the value of choice. He leaves it to us to learn the right choices and the wrong ones.

And no, it's not bad parenting. It's not good if you're forced into it. There is no good choice without a wrong one.

And... this is turning into a circular argument. =.= This goes back into my... earlier post. If he is omnipotent/omniscient, he would have found a way to do ALL these things. After all, he is omnipotent/omniscient. Don't ask me how. I'm using your logic.

No one can prove that God does not exists. I state that the Bible shows proof of God's existence.

God (or humans who believe in God to begin with) wrote Bible. Bible proves God existence.


Hm... =/

I contend that this thread was not meant for a discussion, but to state that there is no God and if you dare say there is then you have to give proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Actually, I agree. But I didn't make this thread so I really don't care one way or the other.

But no one has to prove that God does not exist.

See: Vasu (disproving a negative)

[Jikanu]

Ralath, you forget that God helps those who helps themselves. he wants us to make some of the choices and not to do it all himself.

Once again, with no wrong choice, there is no right.

[Ralath]

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

.

[Jikanu]

He's able and willing, but he would rather have us do some of it for ourselves.

I'm beginning to wonder if Manzacar was right, and if this thread is an attack on religion, not a fair and even discussion. when i post something that makes sense, you bring up an argument for it, which is acceptable. but when i post a counterargument, you bring up your first point, creating a circular argument yourselves.

[Vasu]

Im pretty sure i showed a way in which they could be compatible. you kinda ignored all my previous posts on that topic in there...

I'll deal with this below.

And in some ways, it's not religion, but common sense that goes into politics. And you're assuming everyone in the church feels the same way. Plenty are ok with gay rights, for example.

Well, I wouldn't be too well versed with the goings on in there, but the main point on one of the party's agenda is to build a "magnificent temple for Lord Ram", and they slam anyone who even appears to question his existence. Atheists are pretty much oppressed here with statements like, "Haha, did you make the universe." I realise that is beside the point though.


Ayway, I wonder what influenced Prop. 8?

If NO personal beliefs were in politics, how would they exist? There would be no reason to run, no reason to pay taxes, no stances on any position; religion just influences moral values. i dont see how there's anything wrong with that. It's a moral line you should draw, not a personal-social one.

Sometimes in the wrong way.

EDIT: posted before i saw your post.

No, it's more of that he can do too much, not a lack of being able to do something.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Please clarify.

It's the nature of sin. not any choice made by anyone. Original sin passes down from person to person. it's of no personal fault of anyone.

So the nature of sin is to be ascribed to someone who hasn't done anything to deserve it.

And i answer you one last time, they can co-exist. He CAN change it, but he knows he wont. Therefore, he wouldnt be violating anything. he CAN but WONT. he knows he never would and wouldnt have the reason to, therefore, he CAN but knows he would never have to.

By the very fact that he CAN, he is not omniscient.

He's able and willing, but he would rather have us do some of it for ourselves.

I'm beginning to wonder if Manzacar was right, and if this thread is an attack on religion, not a fair and even discussion. when i post something that makes sense, you bring up an argument for it, which is acceptable. but when i post a counterargument, you bring up your first point, creating a circular argument yourselves.

I'm sorry if some of you feel personally offended. But can you show me one place where I did such a thing? If you are talking about the omniscience/omnipotence incompatibility issue, I simply did not understand your responses.

[Senyx The Soulless one]

I can sum up all of your questions in a single sentence, It will blow your mind.



Wait and see.

[Jikanu]

He's too powerful NOT to lift the rock. that's what my point was.

And yes, whenever you bring humans into play, there will be corruption.

And i see no contradiction between omniciency and omnipitance. Perhaps you should ask him yourself if you end up in heaven?

and here in america, there ARE secular republicans too, citing their own religion-less moral values, so it's not all because of religion

[Ralath]

He's able and willing, but he would rather have us do some of it for ourselves.

I'm beginning to wonder if Manzacar was right, and if this thread is an attack on religion, not a fair and even discussion. when i post something that makes sense, you bring up an argument for it, which is acceptable. but when i post a counterargument, you bring up your first point, creating a circular argument yourselves.

*shrug* Takes two people to have a circular argument. You keep bringing up the same points that I've responded to. And yet, you come up with nothing new.

IMO, that's what religion (or even science) HAS to do--withstand criticism. That's how we make sure the bad theories (ie. geocentrism or the world is flat) go away.