Do you believe in God and why

[sirineou]

35 minutes ago, Tagged said:

The main problem to accept an creator is 

 

"Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book, The Grand Design, that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God"

 

 

 

I am an atheist , but IMO that is not a good argument and is easily defeated.

The answer is , " we cant know who created God because that exists outside our reality. but we know god exists because he enters our reality and revealed himself to as"

 

[Tagged]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am an atheist , but IMO that is not a good argument and is easily defeated.

The answer is , " we cant know who created God because that exists outside our reality. but we know god exists because he enters our reality and revealed himself to as"

 

Then you are smarter than some of the most genious ever lived on this planet ???? 

 

The god we have been teached about, doesnt give any room for accaptance for others have been involved in our creation, and soley take credit for absolut everything and demand 100% admiration and acceptance for his greatness. 

 

However I remembered some of this verse, and found it here 

 

"

Colossians 1:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him."

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Tagged said:

Then you are smarter than some of the most genious ever lived on this planet ???? 

 

The god we have been teached about, doesnt give any room for accaptance for others have been involved in our creation, and soley take credit for absolut everything and demand 100% admiration and acceptance for his greatness. 

 

However I remembered some of this verse, and found it here 

 

"

Colossians 1:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him."

Certainly smarter than Hawkings in that argument, but not in others.

I am only playing devil's advocate and I think successfully defeated the argument i was responding to.

as far as the rest, I agree with you, otherwise I would not be an atheist.

Everything you quoted to , pertains to his revelation in out reality, and is also easily defeated. ie Earth not 6,000 years old, humanity 200.000 years old and you just decide to reveal yourself to a bunch of goat herders in the middle of nowhere  a couple of thousands of years ago ? stop the sun or earth from spinning so the goat herders could defeat those who didn't believe in him.  etc 

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Pretty sure that you wrote you were offended because I posted that, for me, your belief was for me similar to the ones who believe in the tin foil hat theory. 

 

So I extrapolated from that that you are convinced that your believe is real and the other faiths are ridiculous. 

 

If I am wrong in my thinking, and you are also have the opinion, as myself, that every belief must be considered as similar(not one real and the other ridiculous) just post it here please. 

 

You made the statement that " it seems you want to pretend that your experience is real but the others ridiculous" so it's up to YOU to prove that by quoting me saying that. It's not up to me to prove that you are wrong.

I'm waiting, but not holding my breath.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Tagged said:

Then you are smarter than some of the most genious ever lived on this planet ???? 

 

The god we have been teached about, doesnt give any room for accaptance for others have been involved in our creation, and soley take credit for absolut everything and demand 100% admiration and acceptance for his greatness. 

 

However I remembered some of this verse, and found it here 

 

"

Colossians 1:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him."

Still confusing religion with faith, I see.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Dawkins is free to believe that of course, but since he is only looking at it from the outside, his opinion is equal to that of my next door neighbour. At least my neighbour has the good sense to keep his ignorance to himself.

I don't understand why people give him so much credit. Taking cheap shots at religion, however deserved, doesn't disprove that there is a Creator, because they are not the same thing.

I would also be curious to know what exactly the "strong contradictory evidence "is. Care to elaborate?

Don't hold your breath waiting as there is NO "contradictory evidence" only the opinion of people that are closed to anything they choose not to believe in. Wonder how many of them claim to have been "in love", which is on the same plane as belief in "God". Neither are "provable" by our primitive science.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, yodsak said:

Which is why I like to refer to the climate alarmists as members of a religion.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

That depends on the believer and his interpretation of what God is.

I can only speak for myself. For me God is the Ultimate Truth, Eternal Love, Boundless Wisdom....and as such is the foundation of everything there is. 

The different Gods you talk about are simply different interpretations of the One, so for me there's no conflict at all.

 

Many paths, one destination- Nirvana, Utopia, Heaven, whatever one chooses to call it.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Tagged said:

Of course I feel strongly connected to our planet, and the mysteries evolving right here. I also feel connected to my gf as well, but on a different level. Nature is what give me life, hope and also a place I can experience greatness on a much bigger level than any other place. For me there is no more need for looking for a creator and obay, I do that when I meet nature on the natures term. You have to respect, if not you fail, and unfortenely we as humans fail nature every day on a much bigger scale we ever can imagine. That is a much bigger sin than anything else. 

 

As many get their inspiration trough god, I get it trough nature, and David Attenborough is one of the persons who have inspired me my whole life. 

To me nature is just one facet of God, so in my opinion you do believe in "God", even if you do not agree with that.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, sweatalot said:

easy - you grant them the right to be intolerant (Mind you we are talking about beliefs, not about actions, that's a different chapter)

 

I also said: if everybody... that means the intolerant would tolerate the beliefs of others - that means there would be no intolerant

If everyone on here was tolerant of other's beliefs, this thread would have ended about 300 pages ago.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Tagged said:

What goes around comes around? 

 

Reading Trump is chosen by god

 

«Evangelical Leaders Close Ranks With Trump After Scathing Editorial

Christianity Today’s call for President Trump’s removal gave voice to his evangelical critics. But they remain a minority in a political movement that Mr. Trump has reshaped in his own mold.»

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/politics/christianity-today-trump-evangelicals.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

«George Bush: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq’

President told Palestinians God also talked to him about Middle East peace»

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

 

 

I know som of you will say this is falsery, but in my opinion, there have been a beginning for exactly this purpose! Politics and weird minds mixing up faith and politics!

 

Still confusing religion with faith, I see.

[luckyluke]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You made the statement that " it seems you want to pretend that your experience is real but the others ridiculous" so it's up to YOU to prove that by quoting me saying that. It's not up to me to prove that you are wrong.

I'm waiting, but not holding my breath.

This " I say, you say, I not say..I am right, you are wrong..." is now enough for me. 

 

You know my opinion, I know yours. 

 

Up to you if you want continue to quibbling, or whatever, for the pleasure of it. 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, luckyluke said:

An opinion. 

 

I note your arrogance (not uncommon with believers) claiming that your opinion has more value than mine. 

I understand that English is not your first language. In my opinion you are having a comprehension gap. Otherwise you would not be calling other posters arrogant, when they said nothing arrogant.

 

18 hours ago, luckyluke said:

What was Jack's belief? 

If you don't understand what Jack the Ripper's beliefs vs the Dalai Lama's were there is really no point, IMO, in debating the most profound philosophies there are in human life with you.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, luckyluke said:

This " I say, you say, I not say..I am right, you are wrong..." is now enough for me. 

 

You know my opinion, I know yours. 

 

Up to you if you want continue to quibbling, or whatever, for the pleasure of it. 

 

 

 

I was under the impression that it was you doing the quibbling, but by all means don't respond to any of my posts in future.

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but by all means don't respond to any of my posts in future.

You are not a mod, so are not entitled to require anything from me. 

 

If I want to post, or and answer a poster, I will do so. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

You are not a mod, so are not entitled to require anything from me. 

 

If I want to post, or and answer a poster, I will do so. 

 

Do you understand what "by all means" means?

I shall not be responding to any future posts from yourself.

Have a nice day

[luckyluke]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you understand what "by all means" means?

I shall not be responding to any future posts from yourself.

Have a nice day

 I read this part of your post :

 

.. don't respond to any of my post

And misinterpret it. 

The difficulties to understand and correctly read a foreign language. 

[luckyluke]

 

 

Never thought that my posts would be considered as hilarious by some. 

 

Shows that the concept of Humor is very different from one country to another. 

 

[AsianAtHeart]

7 hours ago, Tagged said:

The main problem to accept an creator is 

 

"Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book, The Grand Design, that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God"

 

 

 

That is flawed logic.  Consider the following in order to understand why:

 

1) If nothing had ever existed on its own, nothing would ever have been created.

2) If God must have been created, whomever created God must have already existed.

 

It is my understanding that there are estimated to be no more than 10⁸² (one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms) atoms in the entire universe.  According to scientists, anything with less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ chance of occurring is considered so far beyond the realm of possibility as to be impossible. However, the chances of our DNA evolving from pre-existing matter (and where did said matter come from without a creator),  is less than this impossible probability.  Physicists, who know math, rarely talk much about biogenesis or naturalistic evolution--they understand how improbable such "science" is.  It's the God-denying biologists who try to keep the up the "king has no clothes" charade.

[yodsak]

7 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

2) If God must have been created, whomever created God must have already existed.

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, yodsak said:

As much as i like Bertrand Russell, i have to say these words sound pretty empty to me.

Even admitting that God, Gods and ancient mythologies are human creations, those creations are the archetypes of the human thought, thus there is no reason not to consider them.

If one negates the archetypes of the thought, he may as well negate the thought itself.

 

[Sunmaster]

Yodsak, instead of copy pasting all the time, why don't you use your own words and tell us what this evidence is that indicates there is no God?

[Sunmaster]

Seems to me that this discussion has interesting points but gets repeatedly dragged down to the same point of contention: Religion, and most of the time it's Christian religion and the bible.
This is what most of us here (I think) grew up with. Some had good experiences, some not.
Christian religion is a small wedge of the whole pie. Even if you're knowledgeable of all the religions, you will still have only a small part of the picture.

Imagine spirituality to be like an iceberg, where only a small part is visible above the surface: that's religion as a codified system to (ideally) bring men closer to God. This part can be analyzed, its messages put under scrutiny, its efficacy debated. 

The much larger part (in fact infinitely larger) is below the surface, it's the subjective part that can be only accessed and understood by actively practicing, calming the mind and going deep within. 

Now, you can debate about the iceberg tip until your typing fingers are sore or you have a nervous breakdown, but will it bring you even one step closer to the Truth? Nope.
And that's why I can easily say R. Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about. He attacks the tip of the iceberg (more or less successfully) and thinks he has done away with the whole iceberg.

The value of any religion is proportional to the ability to bring its followers closer to God, not just intellectually through belief and faith, but through direct experience of the Divine. 
Not believing, but knowing!

[AsianAtHeart]

48 minutes ago, yodsak said:

Consider this: If the concept of God is merely created by human thought because people have chosen to believe God exists, so-called "science" has no more sure a foundation than does God.  Both require human thought and belief.

 

Going a little further, here are some fallacies of logic to consider in this context.

 

I. Appeal to Belief
Description:Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
1) Most people believe that a claim, X, is true. 2) Therefore, X is true.
This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

 

II. Appeal to Popularity Description:
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1) Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). 2) Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as “the world is flat”, “humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour”, “the sun revolves around the earth” but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of “reasoning” is quite common and can be quite an effective persuasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

 

III. Appeal to Popularity Corollary
1) Most people approve of X.
2) So, I should approve of X, too.
3) Since I approve of X, X must be true.

 

[ThaiBunny]

14 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

Instead of sending me or others idiotic messages, maybe your time would be better spent reading the Bible for yourself.

As a matter of interest (and I'm assuming your handle means you're in Chiang Mai) presumably you believe that all of the Thais amongst whom you live are destined for Hell?

[Mansell]

On 4/24/2019 at 1:12 PM, transam said:

Well a read that Jesus was persieved to be the King of the Jews, yet his "father" never came to the aid of millions of Jews taken out by the German gov of the day.....Why was that...?

Because they were balancing their karma from previous incarnations when they were either part of the Mongol hordes, the French Revolution, or the Spanish Inquisition. If you look at it from a present day sense, there is no way the Jews today would just walk to their deaths in this way, they would fight tooth and nail. 
Not only individuals have karma, countries have karma. WWII was a balancing for all the countries involved, probably a carry over from WWI and all the previous wars around European countries. Notice most of South America and most of Africa were not involved in these conflicts.
Karma is not punishment, it is a balance of previous lifetimes and whatever the individual did in those times. Life and death is very simple, but humans complicate it. It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or not, that is a personal choice. But not one soul will be lost in the long run...so eventually everybody will get there. Enjoy the journey....because you will be doing it one way or another, this lifetime or the next one, or a thousand more.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Mansell
Update

[CMNightRider]

I have read so many ignorant comments saying man created God, and God is a product of blind faith or primitive man came up with this idea.

 

We all know the universe began to exist.  This needed a cause.  The universe is finely tuned and cannot happen by sheer chance.  It is obvious the fine tuning of the universe is due to design.  Was all this one big accident?  I think not and neither should any of you.

 

I think the answer is self-evident.  God created the universe and we need to respond to His creation and His promise of ever lasting life.

 

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

[CMNightRider]

32 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

As a matter of interest (and I'm assuming your handle means you're in Chiang Mai) presumably you believe that all of the Thais amongst whom you live are destined for Hell?

Instead of asking me silly questions about who I believe is destined for Hell, maybe you should spend less time tip toeing through the tulips with your same sex friends, and read what the Bible says about this subject.  Please read Romans 1:18-20 and Psalm 19:1-4.

[mauGR1]

22 minutes ago, Mansell said:

Because they were balancing their karma from previous incarnations when they were either part of the Mongol hordes, the French Revolution, or the Spanish Inquisition.

I tend to agree with the essence of your post, yet i would be careful when talking about karma, because it may offend one's pride and sensibility.

Don't know if you follow football, but few years ago a very well known guy, who was coach of the English national team, got in serious trouble and eventually lost his job, for talking candidly about karma laws.

Personally i believe in karma, but i regard it as a divine law, thus not easy for humans to fully understand.

 

[Sunmaster]

Great. Now you argue about how the universe was created, a topic where both sides can only speculate.

????????

Edited December 22, 2019 by Sunmaster