1
   

Is there a god?

 
 
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2006 12:44 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
That is what we are discussing. I believe it to be God. I would like to know what Brent and Steve think it is?

If there was a God what created God?

If you are going to have God as the trigger he must have a trigger for himself to be created as well.

He simply could not always exist and no one make him lol, I can not believe i am the only one that finds that mildly insane.

I do not know what created the universe. I do think that no "God" had a hand in it.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2006 02:01 pm
@ndjs,
ndjs wrote:
So God was an action? That doesn't make sense. God being created, that's an action, but oh wait, God wasn't created, he was just there.

Yes, If i have a stack of chips and i push it slightly to move it and it topple over. My finger was the action and the chips falling over was the reaction. If modern day science says our universe came from a finite source smaller then a head of a needle and avter it was pushed it became our total universe, the force needed to compell every thing in our universe outwards must of been immence. I know of no other force that strong other then a higher being that could trigger such an event.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2006 02:07 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
If there was a God what created God?

If you are going to have God as the trigger he must have a trigger for himself to be created as well.

He simply could not always exist and no one make him lol, I can not believe i am the only one that finds that mildly insane.

I do not know what created the universe. I do think that no "God" had a hand in it.
It is not "If there was a God what created God?" First you must prove there is one and if so then we can try and figure where it came from. Your point of view is jumping the gun. It's like asking if there are aliens who made them? Your assuming he needed to be created.

Quote:
I do not know what created the universe. I do think that no "God" had a hand in it.

Then what is your opinion of our origins? I'm not asking for proof, just what you think made it all? Aliens, monsters, what? Like i said early on, I would be getting alot of 'I don't know?' or there is no God but i have no other opinion then that. I find that rather insane that you expect me to believe your hypothesis but offer no opinion of what or why?
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2006 02:24 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
Yes, If i have a stack of chips and i push it slightly to move it and it topple over. My finger was the action and the chips falling over was the reaction. If modern day science says our universe came from a finite source smaller then a head of a needle and avter it was pushed it became our total universe, the force needed to compell every thing in our universe outwards must of been immence. I know of no other force that strong other then a higher being that could trigger such an event.

I'm still not following. So what about stacking chips to the point where they can't support themselves? They will just fall over, needing no "trigger" other than their own weight and lack of organizational support. THAT is a more accurate representation of the most accepted views of how the world was created. The tiny, incredibly dense ball of matter did not need someone/something to touch it to trigger the explosion. It was just unstable.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2006 06:03 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
It is not "If there was a God what created God?" First you must prove there is one and if so then we can try and figure where it came from. Your point of view is jumping the gun. It's like asking if there are aliens who made them? Your assuming he needed to be created.


Then what is your opinion of our origins? I'm not asking for proof, just what you think made it all? Aliens, monsters, what? Like i said early on, I would be getting alot of 'I don't know?' or there is no God but i have no other opinion then that. I find that rather insane that you expect me to believe your hypothesis but offer no opinion of what or why?

I do not have an opinion on our orgins. I do not know.

I do have an opinion about a god creating us. I do not believe this.

You believe in a God not me. Is it not you that said for every reaction there is a trigger?

Well where did your God come from or are you just going to accept the "He was always here" thought?

If that is the thought you wish to accept then there is not point in arguing. I find it simply to far fetched to say he was always here and no one created him lol.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:36 pm
@ndjs,
ndjs wrote:
I'm still not following. So what about stacking chips to the point where they can't support themselves? They will just fall over, needing no "trigger" other than their own weight and lack of organizational support. THAT is a more accurate representation of the most accepted views of how the world was created. The tiny, incredibly dense ball of matter did not need someone/something to touch it to trigger the explosion. It was just unstable.
For them not to support themselves it would be up to us to position them even if slightly off kilter. Given no influence other then a perfect stack nothing whould impead them from going up indefinetly, enter the human equation and things take a turn rather quickly. The trigger needed is positioning then off perfect or a breeze or a vibration. Some thing will always set them off. So a trigger there is. Weight and lack of organisation is a trigger. Instability had to come from somewhere, things are not unstable by themselves. There was a cause for there instability.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:54 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
I do not have an opinion on our orgins. I do not know.

I do have an opinion about a god creating us. I do not believe this.

You believe in a God not me. Is it not you that said for every reaction there is a trigger?

Well where did your God come from or are you just going to accept the "He was always here" thought?

If that is the thought you wish to accept then there is not point in arguing. I find it simply to far fetched to say he was always here and no one created him lol.
Quote:
I do not have an opinion on our orgins. I do not know.

Like i said in the beggining. This is what your answer would be. When stumped by there own definition of science they clam up.

Quote:
I do have an opinion about a god creating us. I do not believe this.


So if it wasn't God what do you think is was?

Quote:
You believe in a God not me. Is it not you that said for every reaction there is a trigger?


No, it is a theory of modern day science. I did not make it up, scienctists did. I said for every action there is a reaction. And for that reaction to take place there had to be a trigger or cause. Uncaused is not possible in what we believe science can prove. Every time they say CAUSED.

Quote:
Well where did your God come from or are you just going to accept the "He was always here" thought?
I am willing to accept it is out of my realm of conprehendility. When you can prove to me that we are here uncaused, using science i will believe in your idea.

Quote:
If that is the thought you wish to accept then there is not point in arguing. I find it simply to far fetched to say he was always here and no one created him lol.


But in the same conversation you can say this was all caused by some thing and not elaborate. It is not too far fetched to believe is was caused, why?
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:55 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
For them not to support themselves it would be up to us to position them even if slightly off kilter. Given no influence other then a perfect stack nothing whould impead them from going up indefinetly, enter the human equation and things take a turn rather quickly. The trigger needed is positioning then off perfect or a breeze or a vibration. Some thing will always set them off. So a trigger there is. Weight and lack of organisation is a trigger. Instability had to come from somewhere, things are not unstable by themselves. There was a cause for there instability.

Things are unstable by themselves, especially nature as a whole. The whole universe tends toward entropy, or disorder. With the sum of any and all reaction or interaction, the entropy, or randomness, of the universe is increased.

An off kilter stack would be more random than a perfect stack. A perfectly organized combination of matter is not feasible at all.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:58 pm
@Brent cv,
Quote:
A perfectly organized combination of matter is not feasible at all.


And yet we exist today, amazing! Not feasible huh?
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:59 pm
@Brent cv,
matter wasn't perfectly organized! That's why there was a big bang or some other massive explosion from a tiny, dense ball!
0 Replies
 
rex b
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 03:44 pm
@Curmudgeon,
Curmudgeon wrote:
I believe in God .
Look at what Rene' Descartes said :


Your 3 and 4 don't add up. An imperfect being could never dream up a perfect being. You could think it it was perfect when in fact it's not.

Also not to mention you assume we are perfect.

What are you basing these assumptions on?
0 Replies
 
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 08:15 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
So who here believes there is a "god" that reigns over Humans?

How do you see God if you believe in one?

Do you follow a certain religion and if so which one?

I myself can not bring myself to believe in a God but I also can not believe any other theories put forth for how we got here as well.


God to me is mans fear of the unknown. The bible was written by men trying to understand why things occured. They did a fair job of addressing all aspects of life, but it's branched out in so many interpretations that it's difficult to pick the right one. My belief of god came from bible teachings.

I was taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit version. I chose the Pentecostal Religion. They play musical instruments, which is a plus for me.
Music and showing praise is part of their belief.

I'v never seen God. He has never spoke to me. I believe in prayer, and feel some of them have been granted. I believe in the concept of there being a God, but science tells me something different. The scientific version has a much better timeframe for me to understand events as they occured.
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2006 12:45 am
@tumbleweed cv,
Quote:
Your 3 and 4 don't add up. An imperfect being could never dream up a perfect being. You could think it it was perfect when in fact it's not.

Also not to mention you assume we are perfect.

What are you basing these assumptions on?

Rex , those are not "my" 3 and 4 , they are Descarte's.
I was trying to inject some semblance of thought from a famous philosopher into the discussion in order to assist us in making up our minds about believing in God , or not believing .
This discussion gets nowhere if none of us is willing to attempt to see the others' positions as plausible , and examine the reasons . Descarte was doing just that when he postulated his "proof" .
You all are missing his point - that an imperfect being ie: man , being imperfect , could not imagine a perfect being simply because he ( man ) IS imperfect , thus incapable of building in his mind a perfect being . Descartes thus claims to "prove" that the perfect being (God) MUST exist to implant the idea in man's mind .
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2006 03:03 pm
@tumbleweed cv,
tumbleweed wrote:
I was taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit version. I chose the Pentecostal Religion. They play musical instruments, which is a plus for me.
Music and showing praise is part of their belief.

That's why there are so many churches now. Everybody picks what is a plus for them. I was raised Church of Christ, and while I am not religious at all anymore, you can expect me to be the stickler of the group, haha. Nowhere in the New Law of the Bible does it mention music as worship or tell people to play music is worship. It mentions song and making melody with the heart, but it doesn't mention an organ or guitar anywhere.
rex b
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2006 03:23 pm
@Curmudgeon,
Curmudgeon wrote:
Rex , those are not "my" 3 and 4 , they are Descarte's.
I was trying to inject some semblance of thought from a famous philosopher into the discussion in order to assist us in making up our minds about believing in God , or not believing .
This discussion gets nowhere if none of us is willing to attempt to see the others' positions as plausible , and examine the reasons . Descarte was doing just that when he postulated his "proof" .
You all are missing his point - that an imperfect being ie: man , being imperfect , could not imagine a perfect being simply because he ( man ) IS imperfect , thus incapable of building in his mind a perfect being . Descartes thus claims to "prove" that the perfect being (God) MUST exist to implant the idea in man's mind .
I get the arguement, and that is why it stinks..

An imperfect man could dream up his "perfect" being. But it would still be imperfect because he is imperfect.
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2006 03:34 pm
@ndjs,
ndjs wrote:
That's why there are so many churches now. Everybody picks what is a plus for them. I was raised Church of Christ, and while I am not religious at all anymore, you can expect me to be the stickler of the group, haha. Nowhere in the New Law of the Bible does it mention music as worship or tell people to play music is worship. It mentions song and making melody with the heart, but it doesn't mention an organ or guitar anywhere.


Could you quote me a verse that states " making melody of the heart". This comes down to Old Testament verses the New Testament. Do we disregard what was in the Old testament? I think the OT is where this issue of music is addressed.

I'v never seen or heard the phrase you mentioned. I don't believe the issue is addressed much or at all in the New Testament
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2006 05:43 pm
@rex b,
rex_b wrote:
I get the arguement, and that is why it stinks..

An imperfect man could dream up his "perfect" being. But it would still be imperfect because he is imperfect.


Excellent point
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2006 06:05 pm
@rex b,
rex_b wrote:
I get the arguement, and that is why it stinks..

An imperfect man could dream up his "perfect" being. But it would still be imperfect because he is imperfect.
I think your statement is in actual agreement with him by the wording? How would we comprehend the definition when we our selves are imperfect. I think the key would by the effort of trying.
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2006 07:09 pm
@tumbleweed cv,
tumbleweed wrote:
Could you quote me a verse that states " making melody of the heart". This comes down to Old Testament verses the New Testament. Do we disregard what was in the Old testament? I think the OT is where this issue of music is addressed.

I'v never seen or heard the phrase you mentioned. I don't believe the issue is addressed much or at all in the New Testament

It's been a looong time since I paid any attention to the Bible, so perhaps it is my wording that is incorrect, but I do know that nowhere in the Bible does it instruct people to play music. David did do this in the old testament, but it doesn't tell us to anywhere at all, and definitely not in the NT. I was raised CoC as I said, and if it doesn't say to do it, they don't do it.
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2006 07:28 pm
@ndjs,
It comes down to interpetation. Maybe your familiar with "Footloose"Very Happy

Exodus Ch.15 v.20-21. Miriam is playing a timbrels ( tamborine) in praise of the lord sending them water.

Psalm Ch.149 v. 1-6. It mentions a harp, and the timbrels while singing praises and dancing.

God didn't command anyone to play an instrument. They used music as a symbol of praise and worship.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is there a god?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 02:31:47