Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The old question - Do you BELIEVE in God?

Page 6 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

15 Feb 2012, 1:57 pm

Shambles wrote:
shrox wrote:
Shambles wrote:
artrat wrote:
I believe in a first mover but not an all powerful God.


Like an Aristotle type thing?


Can someone describe this first mover?



Well, what Aristotle realised was that the earth was is a constant state of change.

So he theorised the idea of the First Mover (also known as Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover xD)

The First Mover doesn't move itself. Instead it changes and moves stuff around it ... Like a magnet, as the magnet can stay stationary as items move towards it.

According to Aristotle, everything is attracted to the First Mover as everyone is drawn to God's perfection and therefore wants to imitate it, as if it were a role model.

Aristotle also theorised that God must be contingent, eternal, perfectly good, beyond material, time and space.

hope that helps :)


I was hoping for more personal statement I guess. What does this first mover mean to you? Most all views of that time assumed some form of something did something. Do you think it was purposeful, or just a consequence of some other action, like tossing a near empty Coke can out on a distant planet, then life arises from it because the conditions are just so..



0031
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 87

16 Feb 2012, 8:35 am

Yes, I do believe in God. An entity that began everything and always was, always will be, and amazingly wants a personal relationship with us humans (is concerned with us.)



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

16 Feb 2012, 11:08 am

circular wrote:
J05ua wrote:
I reject the Gods of all classical theism and if they do exist; I hate them.

That's understandable. A God that would create so much misery and watch while doing nothing is worse than the worst parent on earth.


Really? God attacked that little girl? God ran that red light? God shot Kennedy?



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 Feb 2012, 11:49 am

shrox wrote:
circular wrote:
J05ua wrote:
I reject the Gods of all classical theism and if they do exist; I hate them.

That's understandable. A God that would create so much misery and watch while doing nothing is worse than the worst parent on earth.


Really? God attacked that little girl? God ran that red light? God shot Kennedy?


That's the free will argument against evil in the world. God blames humans. But it doesnt explain the "evil" that is created by natural disasters. Ultimately theists get down to a "god's ways are not our ways" or "only god knows" position.

Which is really their answer for most things. Their god isnt an answer machine. He's an IOU for an answer.



Hexagon
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Bristol, UK

16 Feb 2012, 1:58 pm

Nope. What god would create a transsexual aspie? A person who is not only born in the body of someone of the opposite gender, but someone who is unable to adequately communicate his feelings or even make proper sense of them? Only a malevolent god, and if one should exist, I would very much like to kill it.

I depend on logic and rationality, and the existence of a god is contrary to both of those things, and completely unnecessary in the face of science. And if that isn't enough, then simply by observing the evil and pain in the word, this puts it better than I can:

Quote:
Is god willing, but not able to prevent evil? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is god able, but not willing to prevent evil? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both willing and able; then from whence commeth evil?
Is god neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?
- Epicurus



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

16 Feb 2012, 2:06 pm

shrox wrote:
circular wrote:
J05ua wrote:
I reject the Gods of all classical theism and if they do exist; I hate them.

That's understandable. A God that would create so much misery and watch while doing nothing is worse than the worst parent on earth.


Really? God attacked that little girl? God ran that red light? God shot Kennedy?


I like how theists can quickly change their view from conversation to conversation, even sentence to sentence. Maybe to be a theist one has to have multiple irrational thoughts about everything, and freely move between them depending on the situation. It seems that way when interacting with most theists, in my experience. See above for example. Notice how this theist responds to a statement, at least superficially, but in doing so switches viewpoints and stances, and presupposes that the initial statement he is responding to claimed something entirely different than it did. And then sort of takes this misconstrued intent, and proceeds to exaggerate it until it seems ridiculous. I'm just curious, how much of that is because this thiest didn't understand the comment he was responding to, and how much was it his intent to confuse, mislead, and proselytize?


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

16 Feb 2012, 2:12 pm

Hexagon wrote:
Nope. What god would create a transsexual aspie? A person who is not only born in the body of someone of the opposite gender, but someone who is unable to adequately communicate his feelings or even make proper sense of them? Only a malevolent god, and if one should exist, I would very much like to kill it.

I depend on logic and rationality, and the existence of a god is contrary to both of those things, and completely unnecessary in the face of science. And if that isn't enough, then simply by observing the evil and pain in the word, this puts it better than I can:

Quote:
Is god willing, but not able to prevent evil? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is god able, but not willing to prevent evil? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both willing and able; then from whence commeth evil?
Is god neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?
- Epicurus


Do you want an answer?



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

16 Feb 2012, 2:17 pm

shrox wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
Nope. What god would create a transsexual aspie? A person who is not only born in the body of someone of the opposite gender, but someone who is unable to adequately communicate his feelings or even make proper sense of them? Only a malevolent god, and if one should exist, I would very much like to kill it.

I depend on logic and rationality, and the existence of a god is contrary to both of those things, and completely unnecessary in the face of science. And if that isn't enough, then simply by observing the evil and pain in the word, this puts it better than I can:

Quote:
Is god willing, but not able to prevent evil? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is god able, but not willing to prevent evil? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both willing and able; then from whence commeth evil?
Is god neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?
- Epicurus


Do you want an answer?


I believe this might be the difference between Atheists and Theists. One wants answers, the other needs answers.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

16 Feb 2012, 2:21 pm

NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
Nope. What god would create a transsexual aspie? A person who is not only born in the body of someone of the opposite gender, but someone who is unable to adequately communicate his feelings or even make proper sense of them? Only a malevolent god, and if one should exist, I would very much like to kill it.

I depend on logic and rationality, and the existence of a god is contrary to both of those things, and completely unnecessary in the face of science. And if that isn't enough, then simply by observing the evil and pain in the word, this puts it better than I can:

Quote:
Is god willing, but not able to prevent evil? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is god able, but not willing to prevent evil? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both willing and able; then from whence commeth evil?
Is god neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?
- Epicurus


Do you want an answer?


I believe this might be the difference between Atheists and Theists. One wants answers, the other needs answers.


I wouldn't say that at all. Science needs answers, most people just accept what is, I am somewhere in the middle probably.



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

16 Feb 2012, 2:30 pm

shrox wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
Nope. What god would create a transsexual aspie? A person who is not only born in the body of someone of the opposite gender, but someone who is unable to adequately communicate his feelings or even make proper sense of them? Only a malevolent god, and if one should exist, I would very much like to kill it.

I depend on logic and rationality, and the existence of a god is contrary to both of those things, and completely unnecessary in the face of science. And if that isn't enough, then simply by observing the evil and pain in the word, this puts it better than I can:

Quote:
Is god willing, but not able to prevent evil? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is god able, but not willing to prevent evil? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both willing and able; then from whence commeth evil?
Is god neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?
- Epicurus


Do you want an answer?


I believe this might be the difference between Atheists and Theists. One wants answers, the other needs answers.


I wouldn't say that at all. Science needs answers, most people just accept what is, I am somewhere in the middle probably.


Science needs questions. Questions are the fuel that drives the engine of science. Science needs no answers, only people could need answers. I believe you may be personifying "science" here, as you contrast science vs people, and then claim to be in between them, like some sort of half human half science mythical entity... I really don't follow that at all....

If you have an answer to a question that is unanswerable, then I would argue that you do, indeed, need answers. If you do not have an answer for a question that cannot be answered, then I would say you do not need answers, but might still want them. I think my claim that theists need answers remains.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

16 Feb 2012, 3:13 pm

NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
Nope. What god would create a transsexual aspie? A person who is not only born in the body of someone of the opposite gender, but someone who is unable to adequately communicate his feelings or even make proper sense of them? Only a malevolent god, and if one should exist, I would very much like to kill it.

I depend on logic and rationality, and the existence of a god is contrary to both of those things, and completely unnecessary in the face of science. And if that isn't enough, then simply by observing the evil and pain in the word, this puts it better than I can:

Quote:
Is god willing, but not able to prevent evil? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is god able, but not willing to prevent evil? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both willing and able; then from whence commeth evil?
Is god neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?
- Epicurus


Do you want an answer?


I believe this might be the difference between Atheists and Theists. One wants answers, the other needs answers.


I wouldn't say that at all. Science needs answers, most people just accept what is, I am somewhere in the middle probably.


Science needs questions. Questions are the fuel that drives the engine of science. Science needs no answers, only people could need answers. I believe you may be personifying "science" here, as you contrast science vs people, and then claim to be in between them, like some sort of half human half science mythical entity... I really don't follow that at all....

If you have an answer to a question that is unanswerable, then I would argue that you do, indeed, need answers. If you do not have an answer for a question that cannot be answered, then I would say you do not need answers, but might still want them. I think my claim that theists need answers remains.


OK, what is the point of science, to seek answers to questions about the universe around us.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

17 Feb 2012, 6:40 am

shrox wrote:
OK, what is the point of science, to seek answers to questions about the universe around us.


I agree with that assessment, but I would add "...answers to questions that arise from observations about the universe around us."



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

17 Feb 2012, 8:38 am

shrox wrote:
OK, what is the point of science, to seek answers to questions about the universe around us.


You change the topic so often its a blur.

I guess you know what science is better than anyone else here though, being half science yourself.

Personal question; which side is it on, your mother's, or father's?



----

Bad science has a need for an answer. Good science seeks to answer questions, and find more questions. If you need an answer, you're doing it wrong.

----

And anything science relatedwise is irrelevant to my point.

Atheists want answers, theists need them.

(And personally, as neither, I just think it'd be cool to have a new question)


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

17 Feb 2012, 10:39 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
OK, what is the point of science, to seek answers to questions about the universe around us.


You change the topic so often its a blur...


No I haven't. I am an artist.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

17 Feb 2012, 12:19 pm

shrox wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
OK, what is the point of science, to seek answers to questions about the universe around us.


You change the topic so often its a blur...


No I haven't. I am an artist.


and that has what to do with the topic at hand?


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


0031
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 87

17 Feb 2012, 12:21 pm

Quote:
Nope. What god would create a transsexual aspie? A person who is not only born in the body of someone of the opposite gender, but someone who is unable to adequately communicate his feelings or even make proper sense of them? Only a malevolent god, and if one should exist, I would very much like to kill it.


Everybody is born with challenges and everybody is born with strengths. Even Aspies have a need for society, and society needs to cater for it's members. We're not living in a perfect world, but that's no reason to doubt that there is a God.

Are you trying to tell me that a transsexual aspie can never be happy, has never had love, or been able to feel fulfilled?

The world is a complex place and God is, imho, so complex that it's beyond our comprehension in the same way that it's beyond the comprehension of a baby how a car- engine works.