Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 868 (689025)
01-27-2013 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tangle
01-27-2013 5:22 AM


Re: A Sketch of the Biblical View of God and gods
God gave us no provision for demonstrating that He's real. He gave us many witnesses to His reality that we either believe or we don't. When we believe, as Christians will generally attest, then we know He's real. Interesting how that works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2013 5:22 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ramoss, posted 01-28-2013 10:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 32 of 868 (689027)
01-27-2013 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
01-27-2013 3:16 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:
It looks like we're done - you simply believe something for which there isn't a scrap of evidence yet there's an everyday explanation and I find that totally preposterous, but that's hardly new here
Well, that's not quite true. There is the story of the resurrection of Jesus. I'm not saying that it is conclusive but people took the time to write those stories down and we can believe them are not which is a matter of faith. However, it is evidence.
I can say though that "you simply believe something for which there isn't a scrap of evidence". There is no evidence that God doesn't exist yet you believe it.
I realize that there is no evidence for pink unicorns or the FSM either but I haven't met anybody yet who believes in their existence.
Personal experience aside it all boils down to plausibility. Is it more plausible that our intelligence and sense of morality was the result of an intelligent and moral first cause or, did our intelligence and morality result from a fortunate, natural, non-intelligent, non-moral chance combination of pre-existing particles?
I choose door 1 and it appears, correct me if I'm wrong, that you choose door 2.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2013 3:16 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2013 4:58 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 33 of 868 (689036)
01-27-2013 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
01-27-2013 3:20 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:
Well, that's not quite true. There is the story of the resurrection of Jesus. I'm not saying that it is conclusive but people took the time to write those stories down and we can believe them are not which is a matter of faith. However, it is evidence.
I'm afraid it's not even evidence, it's hearsay at best. Like you say, a story.
I can say though that "you simply believe something for which there isn't a scrap of evidence". There is no evidence that God doesn't exist yet you believe it.
That's silly. And you know it. (I hope)
I realize that there is no evidence for pink unicorns or the FSM either but I haven't met anybody yet who believes in their existence.
I think that you also know that FSMs and so on are exaggerations to make a point. You need to ask yourself why billions of people believe in things that you don't and have done so for thousands of years. It's the atheist's view that pink unicorns are are viable as Vishna, Thor, fairies and Father Christmas. The Christian god is just another in a long line of fantasies.
Personal experience aside it all boils down to plausibility. Is it more plausible that our intelligence and sense of morality was the result of an intelligent and moral first cause or, did our intelligence and morality result from a fortunate, natural, non-intelligent, non-moral chance combination of pre-existing particles?
You also know that arguments from ignorance aren't any use here either.
But yes, the latter is far more probable. Particularly given the evidence for it and the absence of evidence for the former.
I choose door 1 and it appears, correct me if I'm wrong, that you choose door 2.
There is no spoon. [door]

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 01-27-2013 3:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 01-27-2013 7:47 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 34 of 868 (689048)
01-27-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tangle
01-27-2013 4:58 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:
I'm afraid it's not even evidence, it's hearsay at best. Like you say, a story.
It is clear in reading the accounts that the disciples, and Paul for that matter, believed that the resurrection was an actual historical event. The question is did they get it right or not, like any other historical account.
GDR writes:
I can say though that "you simply believe something for which there isn't a scrap of evidence". There is no evidence that God doesn't exist yet you believe it.
Tangle writes:
That's silly. And you know it. (I hope)
Why? This world exists and we exist. We have no objective evidence concerning a first cause. If you think you have some I'm all ears metaphorically speaking of course.
Tangle writes:
I think that you also know that FSMs and so on are exaggerations to make a point. You need to ask yourself why billions of people believe in things that you don't and have done so for thousands of years. It's the atheist's view that pink unicorns are are viable as Vishna, Thor, fairies and Father Christmas. The Christian god is just another in a long line of fantasies.
That is the atheist's POV. So what? The Christian belief is that God is real.
GDR writes:
Personal experience aside it all boils down to plausibility. Is it more plausible that our intelligence and sense of morality was the result of an intelligent and moral first cause or, did our intelligence and morality result from a fortunate, natural, non-intelligent, non-moral chance combination of pre-existing particles?
Tangle writes:
You also know that arguments from ignorance aren't any use here either.
But yes, the latter is far more probable. Particularly given the evidence for it and the absence of evidence for the former.
Again, what evidence would that be?
Edited by GDR, : typo

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2013 4:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2013 9:32 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 35 of 868 (689116)
01-28-2013 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
01-27-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:
It is clear in reading the accounts that the disciples, and Paul for that matter, believed that the resurrection was an actual historical event. The question is did they get it right or not, like any other historical account.
The stories in the bible are anecdotal - they're a million miles from evidence - we don't even know who wrote them, but we do know they weren't eye witnesses. Many historians are not even convinced that JC actually existed, let alone rose from the dead.
Why? This world exists and we exist. We have no objective evidence concerning a first cause. If you think you have some I'm all ears metaphorically speaking of course.
You've been here long enough to know that rationalists like me, do not believe something just because it can't be disproven. You're exactly the same, you can't prove that Islam isn't the only way to eternal happiness, but you don't believe it do you?
You make a claim, you prove it. I'm prepared to believe things that have some supporting evidence. If you believe in the risen christ and all the god made everything just for us stuff, that's fine, so long as you don't try to pretend it's rational.
The first cause idea is simply a philosophical construct - it's not real. I'm simply not interested in it because it gets us nowhere - making up an imaginary first cause (a god) in order to get around a lack of a first cause is just silly.
Nor do I necessarily need a first cause (physics tell me I don't). I don't even expect to be able to understand how the universe works - I'm just a lump of primitive protein, why should I (ie humans) expect to understand how this all works?
Again, what evidence would that be?
The Theory of Evolution.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 01-27-2013 7:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 01-28-2013 11:40 AM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 36 of 868 (689128)
01-28-2013 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
01-28-2013 9:32 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:
The stories in the bible are anecdotal - they're a million miles from evidence - we don't even know who wrote them, but we do know they weren't eye witnesses. Many historians are not even convinced that JC actually existed, let alone rose from the dead.
They were written as historical documents and as such we can view them as we do any other historical documents. We can accept them completely or partially, or we can reject them totally but somebody took the time write them all those years ago so it is evidence. Concerning the accuracy of the writings as evidence is a different debate.
Tangle writes:
You've been here long enough to know that rationalists like me, do not believe something just because it can't be disproven. You're exactly the same, you can't prove that Islam isn't the only way to eternal happiness, but you don't believe it do you?
You make a claim, you prove it. I'm prepared to believe things that have some supporting evidence. If you believe in the risen christ and all the god made everything just for us stuff, that's fine, so long as you don't try to pretend it's rational.
Is it rational to believe that an incredibly complex cell could come into existence from a random collection of particles? Is it really rational to believe that intelligence could also emerge from this same random collection of particles? Apparently that is your claim, so prove it.
Tangle writes:
The first cause idea is simply a philosophical construct - it's not real. I'm simply not interested in it because it gets us nowhere - making up an imaginary first cause (a god) in order to get around a lack of a first cause is just silly.
Nor do I necessarily need a first cause (physics tell me I don't). I don't even expect to be able to understand how the universe works - I'm just a lump of primitive protein, why should I (ie humans) expect to understand how this all wo rks?
You have discounted all the work done by centuries of scientific minds who have worked hard at trying to understand how this all works. It is your view that the idea that God, god or gods exist is imaginary. Maybe you’re right but most of the world’s population disagree with you.
GDR writes:
Again, what evidence would that be?
tangle writes:
The Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is as near as I can tell a well evidenced theory as to the process that led to life today. It is not evidence of why we exist. It would be like looking at a car assembly line and claiming that the assembly line just came into existence on its own and is solely responsible for the existence of cars.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2013 9:32 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2013 12:45 PM GDR has replied
 Message 41 by xongsmith, posted 01-29-2013 1:26 AM GDR has replied
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 01-30-2013 4:25 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 37 of 868 (689137)
01-28-2013 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
01-28-2013 11:40 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:
Is it rational to believe that an incredibly complex cell could come into existence from a random collection of particles? Is it really rational to believe that intelligence could also emerge from this same random collection of particles?
Yes. We call it biology.
Apparently that is your claim, so prove it.
The Theory of Evolution provides the evidence and the proof for the second, for the first, science is still stumped and maybe always will be. But obviously that's not evidence for a god - as has been said many times on these boards. [God of the gaps.]
You have discounted all the work done by centuries of scientific minds who have worked hard at trying to understand how this all works. It is your view that the idea that God, god or gods exist is imaginary. Maybe you’re right but most of the world’s population disagree with you.
There are more scientists alive now that have ever lived in the history of the world. Science is only a handful of generations old. Barely started. Maybe one day we'll solve all the problems and get all the answers - I have no idea. But I have no reason to believe that we can or will.
What I do know is that the God theory has had its day. It's had thousands of years to prove its point and it's failed at every attempt. There is not one single incident of a provable supernatural event - not one.
Primitive beliefs are being chipped away at in all modern societies. Education and economic development sees them off. They'll be out of the way in another millennia.
The Theory of Evolution is as near as I can tell a well evidenced theory as to the process that led to life today. It is not evidence of why we exist.
There's no reason at all - other than self-importance - for there to be a reason why we exist beyond the obvious one that we evolved from simpler organisms.
The desire to find purpose, led to the invention of that purpose. That's just the way we deal with life - we pretend that that we're special. We ain't.
It would be like looking at a car assembly line and claiming that the assembly line just came into existence on its own and is solely responsible for the existence of cars.
Aren't you bored reading the same old analogies followed by the same old explanations why the analogy is just plain silly? I am.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 01-28-2013 11:40 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:36 AM Tangle has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 38 of 868 (689229)
01-28-2013 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
01-27-2013 3:59 AM


Re: A Sketch of the Biblical View of God and gods
People have always had experiences of the "gods" and know by experience that they are real. But the way Christians who believe in the Bible know the reality of God is by believing what the Bible says, believing the witnesses who testify to their experiences of the work of the true God in this world. It's not a blind faith, and it's not an experience, you are believing in testimony. And most Christians will tell you that once they truly believe then they also do experience God in various ways, speaking in a personal way through His word being the most common I suppose.
Well, the way I see it, people wrote down stories in the Bible, mixed in a bit of history, and then made a LOT of tall tales up. You can proclaim the 'Truth' of the bible all you want, but so far, no one has been able to show me that their 'religious expereinces' are anything more than confirmation bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 01-27-2013 3:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 39 of 868 (689231)
01-28-2013 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
01-27-2013 3:04 PM


Re: A Sketch of the Biblical View of God and gods
God gave us no provision for demonstrating that He's real. He gave us many witnesses to His reality that we either believe or we don't. When we believe, as Christians will generally attest, then we know He's real. Interesting how that works.
Well, there are a lot of witnesses to the 'reality' of aliens kidnapping people, and for ghosts, big foot and the loch ness monster.
Now, why is it that 'God gave us no provision for demonstrating that is real' looks just the same as 'Gos isn't there at all'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 01-27-2013 3:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 40 of 868 (689244)
01-29-2013 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
01-27-2013 3:59 AM


Re: A Sketch of the Biblical View of God and gods
Faith writes:
None of this is made up, it's all real.
Oh, how convenient for you. You remain the most at risk in this group. You are so easily way more frightened of the world you think you are in than any one of the rest of us here in EvC.
I pray for you. I hold a torch out for you. I grow a flower for you. I hope you escape from your prison soon. Keep that flame burning.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 01-27-2013 3:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 41 of 868 (689247)
01-29-2013 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
01-28-2013 11:40 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8
This is patently obvious in a society of human beings - except for the last bit - the "walk humbly with your God" part. You don't need a God to walk humbly. All of the good behaviors of mankind do NOT need some God to be obvious and well-attended to in the course of human civilization.
But I really dig the word "your" in there. Take that under your own recognizance, Faith.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 01-28-2013 11:40 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:40 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 42 of 868 (689250)
01-29-2013 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tangle
01-28-2013 12:45 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:
Is it rational to believe that an incredibly complex cell could come into existence from a random collection of particles? Is it really rational to believe that intelligence could also emerge from this same random collection of particles?
Tangle writes:
Yes. We call it biology.
You're smarter than that. Obviously biology is the study of how things are and not about the cause of a cell's existence.
Tangle writes:
The Theory of Evolution provides the evidence and the proof for the second, for the first, science is still stumped and maybe always will be. But obviously that's not evidence for a god - as has been said many times on these boards. [God of the gaps.]
I am not claiming that it is evidence for God.I am only saying that it doesn't tell us one way or the other. It is you who claimed that evolution was evidence against there being a god which is simply "science of the gaps".
Tangle writes:
What I do know is that the God theory has had its day. It's had thousands of years to prove its point and it's failed at every attempt. There is not one single incident of a provable supernatural event - not one.
OK but so what? I'm not claiming that it is provable, but that it also doesn't mean or prove that God doesn't exist.
Tangle writes:
Primitive beliefs are being chipped away at in all modern societies. Education and economic development sees them off. They'll be out of the way in another millennia.
There are many people brighter and better educated than either of us who believe in what you condescendingly call "primitive beliefs".
Tangle writes:
There's no reason at all - other than self-importance - for there to be a reason why we exist beyond the obvious one that we evolved from simpler organisms.
The simplest organisms that we know of, (correct me if I'm wrong), consist of one incredibly complex single cell. You have faith in the fact that mindless particles could by chance come together to form the original cell which then some how was able to reproduce itself. Personally, even though I can't prove that to be false I can't muster up enough faith to believe that it's true.
Tangle writes:
The desire to find purpose, led to the invention of that purpose. That's just the way we deal with life - we pretend that that we're special. We ain't.
Your line of reasoning means that we are no more special than a rock if both you and a rock are nothing more than a random collection of atoms. You however have intelligence, motor skills and a set of values. You can make intentional changes to the world. A rock can't, so just maybe you are more special than a rock after all.
Tangle writes:
Aren't you bored reading the same old analogies followed by the same old explanations why the analogy is just plain silly? I am.
I suppose, but I am a little bored of hearing the ridiculous idea that evolution provides an explanation for how life came into existence in the first place.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2013 12:45 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 3:15 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 43 of 868 (689251)
01-29-2013 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by xongsmith
01-29-2013 1:26 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
xongsmith writes:
This is patently obvious in a society of human beings - except for the last bit - the "walk humbly with your God" part. You don't need a God to walk humbly. All of the good behaviors of mankind do NOT need some God to be obvious and well-attended to in the course of human civilization.
The sentiment can be found in all the major religions in the world, as well as in the secular world as an ideal. Frankly, that is what I would expect of there was a god/gods influencing us in that direction.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by xongsmith, posted 01-29-2013 1:26 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 44 of 868 (689254)
01-29-2013 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
01-29-2013 2:36 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:
You're smarter than that. Obviously biology is the study of how things are and not about the cause of a cell's existence.
Biology studies how thing got to be what they are as well as what they are now. Homo sapiens evolved from ape like ancestors which in turn evolved from simpler animals and so on. That is the cause of our existence.
I am not claiming that it is evidence for God.I am only saying that it doesn't tell us one way or the other. It is you who claimed that evolution was evidence against there being a god which is simply "science of the gaps".
Absolutely not. I have rejected your premise that because I can't prove there in no god, that I therefore should believe in one. Instead I insist that in order for me to believe in something I need evidence for it. You have provided none other than the existence of stories in a book that you personally believe to be true. Others believe other books with similar lack of evidence.
I'm not an atheist because science has proven the stories in the bible to be wrong - tho' obviously that's important and devastating for those that believed in them - I'm an atheist because I can find no evidence at all - and I do mean none - for a god.
So all the rest of your arguments are straw men. I don't need a first cause, I don't need to believe that my existence here is important in any cosmic sense, I don't think there is any important difference between me and a rock, I'm not searching for the meaning of life and I don't need a "why".
In fact, if I believe in anything of this sort, it's that the search for a why - in a philosophical and religious sense - is the cause of most of our problems. And the sooner we get over our massive egos, the sooner we will come to terms with developing ways of making our short lives here more pleasant and equitable for everyone.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:36 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 11:54 AM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 45 of 868 (689289)
01-29-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tangle
01-29-2013 3:15 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:
Biology studies how thing got to be what they are as well as what they are now. Homo sapiens evolved from ape like ancestors which in turn evolved from simpler animals and so on.
OK. So far so good.
Tangle writes:
That is the cause of our existence.
There is no evidence for that. That is simply a matter of belief.
Tangle writes:
Absolutely not. I have rejected your premise that because I can't prove there in n o god, that I therefore should believe in one
I did not say that. I can’t prove that there is a god and you can’t prove there isn’t. It is a matter of belief. Aside from other things I contend that an intelligent first cause is more plausible than is intelligence and morality evolving from mindless particles.
Tangle writes:
Instead I insist that in order for me to believe in something I need evidence for it. You have provided none other than the existence of stories in a book that you personally believe to be true. Others believe other books with similar lack of evidence.
I’m not claiming that the Bible is inerrant and I’m not saying that other holy books don’t have truth in them as well. Yes I believe the account in the Bible of the resurrection of Christ as being historical however that isn’t the only evidence. The world and specifically all life does appear to be designed. We do seem to desire purpose in our lives as you said earlier. Things like thoughts and emotions are real but not physical. Particles appear and disappear. QM indicates that there are other dimensions/universes that we are unable to perceive. All these things are evidence that we draw our conclusions from and form our own beliefs.
Tangle writes:
I'm not an atheist because science has proven the stories in the bible to be wrong - tho' obviously that's important and devastating for those that believed in them
Science has proven that one particular way of understanding the Bible is wrong. I agree that there was no 6 day creation, and I agree that there was no worldwide flood but so what.
Tangle writes:
I'm an atheist because I can find no evidence at all - and I do mean none - for a god.
There is nothing that you will accept as evidence for a god.
Tangle writes:
So all the rest of your arguments are straw men. I don't need a first cause, I don't need to believe that my existence here is important in any cosmic sense, I don't think there is any important difference between me and a rock, I'm not searching for the meaning of life and I don't need a "why".
Just because you don’t feel the need for a why doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. We can all exist without needing anything beyond ourselves but that tells us nothing about whether something beyond ourselves actually exists, or not.
Tangle writes:
In fact, if I believe in anything of this sort, it's that the search for a why - in a philosophical and religious sense - is the cau se of most of our problems. And the sooner we get over our massive egos, the sooner we will come to terms with developing ways of making our short lives here more pleasant and equitable for everyone.
My understanding of my faith has nothing to do with ego and is in fact just the opposite, and the goal of my faith is to do in whatever small way I can to make the short lives of myself, and more importantly others more pleasant and equitable. (I am only saying that is the goal and I am not saying that I am particularly successful at achieving the goal.)

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 3:15 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 01-29-2013 12:00 PM GDR has replied
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 12:35 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024