Existence of God

What I don't understand is how people can actually believe there is a god. There is no suggestion of an existence of a god, and many suggestions that negate the existence of god. Although, most of the people here are probably atheists trying to convey their views, I’m hoping a few devout Christians or whatnot will try and explain how a god is logically possible, or probable. too many things contradict the supposed unconditional love of god or free will given to all humans. example: if you have unconditional love for a person, and is all forgiving, how can you send someone you love to hell to suffer eternally?[This message has been edited by Psyiko, 10-08-2003]

This may be true but while I was a little aphrensive about being ordained in high school the doubt was only immaturity for in the mean time I came across Dawkin's view that prooved to me it made no sense to think that because of the way the world actually is that God or Judge Judy did not exist. I simply stoped thinking that God did or did not exist and instead tried to understand why people had faith. Turns out my niavity was correct. God exists. Everthing including the law points to it. If I get prosecuted by the US GOV becuase harvard promoted functionality instead of a belief such I will begin to wonder indeed if culture has not ALSO surpassed Newton's notion of transient fits between two points under gravity. Part of the issue is just not to think about it. If you only think that death is beauty and existentialism is all there ever was to Gould's Neitschze then you may be left with nothing but Balzac and a fictional Messiah in the purely verbal part but we can deal with that if you know how that is brought up without me in the name rather read and learn about Matchette who wrote, : "In its duality with the Absolute, the Zero-Atom Unit can be seen as capable of possessing immanently the totality of relative manifestations. For the Absolute, necessary unchanging Being, is wholly ACTUAL, without growth or decay. There is no sense in whchi it can be said to "look forward" or "reminisce....it clearly cannot become RELATIVE."What one must do is to blink the silence wihout thought where others try to make the dual become this relative. It at least SHOULD NOT be done. If it is, you have a chance to worship GOD.

'it made no sense to think that because of the way the world actually is that God or Judge Judy did not exist.'I agree Brad. Great post by the way. I'm out of your league but sometimes I think I know where your coming from. Jewels on my tongue, nevertheless.

Gods do not have to be logically or probably possible. All that matters is that people believe in them; if they do then that is good enough for them.Your post suggests that you wonder how people can believe in the Christian god. Is this the case?The Rock Hound

yea, i mean the christian god, cuz i understand that if you believe in something, it is essentially true to you. what i dont understand is that how people ignore all the things wrong with the bible, yet condemn all us 'sinners' to repent and join their side..

Did you really feel like you were condemned here? What was the affect in that case??Perhaps Matchette p 72 will helphope "The essential element in this orderliness is the referential character of each memeber of thiz arrangement to some other determinate memeber. Thus, given a book, we know its position in the library relative to other memebers of the library, if the books are arranged in an order. It is the absence of this determinte referential relation to other members of the collection that distinguishes the mere aggregate from the ordered collection." OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICScompare Eistein on position - "We come know to our concepts and judgements of space. It is essential here also to pay strict attention to the relation of experience to our concepts...Poincare call these, changes in position. By means of simple changes in position we can bring two bodies into contact...we may say that we CONTINUE (italcs) body A." THE MAEANING OF RELATIVITY

I don't think Psyiko was condemned here Brad. Perhaps s/he is referring to the general attitude of fundamentalists.I would agree though, that it is a bit hypocritical to demand that 'sinners' repent and come back to god or whatever, while ignoring the large gaping holes in the book that their vaunted religion is based on.The Rock Hound

I dont think anyone can say outright there is absolutely no possibilty of there being a god. Thats why i dont understand atheists, i can understand agnostics at least. Its possible that the specific gods in differnt religions may not exsist, But what about a god with a totally differnt personallity from all of them or a god that just created and now watches his universe in action. Sure there is still a possibilty there is no god, but you cannot say for sure there isnt.

That IS a possibility .However, this means that anything can be substituted such as "Wormlike appendages in transit between inverse orthogonally opposed superstrings collided and the debris field constitutes what we now falsely interpret as the 'real universe'."Such is the reason for science.Observe, postulate, test, record, check for errors, submit to others to allow them to check if you missed something ,reject if necessary ,if not refine, test again etc.It is hard work but it gets results and over time produces a picture that allows us to see things that we never could have known otherwise.Personally my atheism stems from the fact that science as I study it more and more gives greater clarity. The more I go through the different religous points of view the more muddy the waters become. In atheism it all falls in place even if it isn't the way I would rather it to be.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-14-2003]

Atheists don't say that they know for sure that there's no god. What we are sure about is that there's no evidence for god.Draw your own conclusions. To me one conclusion seems obvious, though I grant that conclusion is not totally supported by the premise. Nonetheless it's relatively easy to divide all concepts of god into two categories: 1) those that are contradictory to observation and 2) those that never intervene in the universe. The first kind obviously don't exist. The second kind it wouldn't matter if they did.

Hello Psyiko:I'm a fundamentalist Christian YEC and I must begin by saying that you are misrepresenting us and God.If you truly want some answers, I'll try to help. Personally I would prefer answering you on a one-on-one format (email) since this type of format is open to scoffers/skeptics and this often distracts from a genuine search for answers. But I'll give it a shot and hope that they don't get too wacky.Your first question was : "if you have unconditional love for a person, and are all forgiving, how can you send someone you love to hell to suffer eternally?"The core of your question involves a seeming contradiction between all-loving, all-forgiving and punishment for all-eternity.There is no contradiction, you are merely committing a common mistake : failing to take into account ALL of the attributes of God. Yes, God is loving and merciful, but He is also righteous and just. He is also incompatible with sin. He has also told us that the wage for sin is 'death'.God must be all things that He is without ceasing to be any of them. Would He remain God if He loved us but did not eradicate sin from amongst us? Absolutely not.These are spiritual principles but they have earthly analogies. If we break (human) laws there are negative consequences (fines... prison... even death). The stakes are much higher in the spiritual realm and, the fact is, we can't 'pay the fine'. Fortunately for us, He is merciful and has given us the way to salvation - Jesus Christ. But then many people reject that path. Would you blame God for this? Many people do!Jorge[This message has been edited by Joralex, 10-12-2003]

It should be that GOD demands this in my book. I have two children out of wedlock that DO NOT want to talk to me. I can not figure that out. I remember going to a Babtist Chruch as a kid and "disliking" being called a sinner. But I didnt like it because in addition to being called one I didnt know what one was. I now know.Matchette (making babies in my case) "My decision to DO x ( the mental state of decision; of lesser divergence) giving rise to the physico-mechanical state X (of greater divergence) is not ultiamtely tragic, preciesly because X, a part of the physico-mechanical world, is itself inevitably part of a pattern of Polarity which moves it forever toward the Absolute. There is, of course a reverse side to this medal. For just as man in his most dedicated strivings is irremediably destinded to the 'falling away' we have just described, so, conversely, in his most recedent strivings, in his most evil, in his worst strivings, he is unable COMPLETELY to move from the Absolute. Raskolnikov's brutal murder of the old woman, the outcome of a decision in the direciton of increased divergence, the outcome of a highly negative thought, neverthless generates activites within the the physcio-mechanical regions of the relative world - and these again are moving toward the Absolute; these are parts of the vast Polarized procession toward the Absolute; "I am not sure we can say that repetence HAS this generational activity.the next clause is "This is the point of view which saves man from utmost tragedy; this is what ...."Not agreeing with this last -does not- form that referential relation of the books, whether holy or holes, determine(ing)(s) an orginal divergence but() wholly of course making ones circustances less than formerly - I would not condone.

quote:

---

Fortunately for us, He is merciful and has given us the way to salvation - Jesus Christ. But then many people reject that path. Would you blame God for this? Many people do!

---

Why do we need to be saved, Joralex? And how is Jesus the way? Explain this to me, in detail.I would say that people cannot blame anything on an entity that they don't believe exists in the first place. This looks like a general, unfounded assertation.I also don't think Psyiko is mis-representing Christians here, and you have not shown why you think otherwise. The Christian god has many contradictions, if the bible is to be believed (although I admit that my knowledge of the bible is limited, and others here could answer that question with more confidence).The Rock Hound

Ok, I think I get your drift, Brad. (I hope )It's inevitable that people are not going to like being called a sinner, and being told to repent and all that. I suppose the question here is why would some one choose a religion that openly insults them, when it is based on a book that is touted as the one true path (despite its less-than-factual nature), and there are so many other religions that simply emphasise spiritual well-being.The Rock Hound

Hi, Rockafella'It's inevitable that people are not going to like being called a sinner,'However, it is not the christian calling you a sinner, because he too is sinful. My only duty is to tell you that God says you are a sinner. That is the whole point.'I suppose the question here is why would some one choose a religion that openly insults them,'Then don't have religion. Have faith. Read and tell me if sin is mentioned. No one has called anyone a sinner. Except for God, who kind of has the right. But if you nevertheless dislike what he says, you can choose the easy path, no one will force your hand, so don't pretend they have.