Does god exist?

[คkekvake]

Yesh, yesh I am indeed Shean Chonnery.

I like how you're so immensely afraid of death you can't even listen to our arguments. It's like they just go in through one ear and out through the other

I'd like you to respond to this.

Very much so.

[Blackie6789]

I like how you're so immensely afraid of death you can't even listen to our arguments. It's like they just go in through one ear and out through the other

I'd like you to respond to this.

Very much so.

Please give me the exact link where you found this thread.

Putting in different words in a quote is not a efficient debate habit to get into.

I would like you to reply to this.

''Adam and Eve caused sin and death''

Lynch 'em.

This proves my point exactly, your initial thought was to kill them.

God's was to forgive them. Do you grasp the difference between men and God?

[Rim]

This proves my point exactly, your initial thought was to kill them.

God's was to forgive them. Do you grasp the difference between men and God?

1. It's a joke.
2. God didn't forgive them, he punished humanity forever for their one mistake.
3. I grasp the difference between men and god; men exist.

[Zelexion]

Blackie, if the Bible is the "truth"

Why do they cover up everything so well? Jesus' body and bones are made to dissapear from the Earth leaving us no evidence, if they wanted us to believe why didn't they leave the body behind?

[คkekvake]

Please give me the exact link where you found this thread.

Putting in different words in a quote is not a efficient debate habit to get into.

I would like you to reply to this.



This proves my point exactly, your initial thought was to kill them.

God's was to forgive them. Do you grasp the difference between men and God?

http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Does-god-exist
There you go

Star Trek The Motion Picture is a 1979 American science fiction film released by Paramount Pictures. It is the first film based on the Star Trek television series. When a mysterious and immensely powerful alien cloud approaches Earth, absorbing everything in its path, Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) assumes command of his old starship – the USS Enterprise – and takes it to intercept the cloud, hoping to save the planet and determine the cloud's origins and purpose.

Here you go

And you obviously don't get jokes.

And you really didn't answer or listen to what I said at all, you just made random comments about my quote.

[Rammjet]

The field has a poor definition, but art is still art.

The point you're trying to argue is that there is absolutely no difference in quality between any and every single piece of art ever created. I'm telling you that's crazy, and patently false.

I'm saying there's no official measure of taste. That's completely true, and saying 'no it isn't' just won't do. You could define quality as social impact, resolution, proportional accuracy, but all of these will only exist in your own mind.

Officially the universe doesn't care about our trivial human matters and therefore doesn't have any rules for us to follow here.


Whereas you argue qualities of perfection can exist, highlighting high art as examples, these are artificial concepts of perfection and since the idea you're trying to prove is such a poorly formed one, we can do no better than to leave it as an 'undefined'.

By any standard of 'human' perfection, many of us would agree that the universe certainly isn't perfect, and therefore the behaviour of any supernatural creatured therein are not perfect. Just as you can say society is imperfect and therefore the behaviour of the humans therein is imperfect.

The original basis for morality and right and bad was the Bible.

If you don't believe in the Bible yet believe in moral and doing what's right, your contradicting yourself, your taking from my argument to build yours.

This is nonsensical.

Morals emerge from evolution; pack animals function better if they protect eachother. This is why animals like wolves and lions will not kill eachother- despite it being easier than catching prey. Animals which do not rely on one another have no need for these morals so they will resort to cannibalism. This is seen in species of shark for example.

Morality existed a long long time before your bible did, and your bible is, in my view, not a good source of morals: I'm not going to consider Gay people 'abominations' just because a man 2000 years ago said so.
For my morality I make decisions based on reasoning: Is behaviour X harmful? If this behaviour is murder- then yes it's an immoral behaviour because it directly damages our gene pool. If this behaviour is homosexuality- then no, it is not immoral, because homosexuals do not cause defined harm to other people.

[[1amayzingman]]

A question for Blackie:

Why would a perfect being place faith over the quality of a person? As you said, no matter what Christians are going to heaven, and no matter what non-Christians are going to hell. What happens to the good non-Christian, one who lived his life in a good and fair way? What of the bad Christian, the one who uses his faith as a means for self superiority, or for personal gain? Surely god would send the first to heaven and the second to hell (or at least have some form of punishment) if he were at all just.

[[1amayzingman]]

I'm saying there's no official measure of taste. That's completely true, and saying 'no it isn't' just won't do. You could define quality as social impact, resolution, proportional accuracy, but all of these will only exist in your own mind.

Officially the universe doesn't care about our trivial human matters and therefore doesn't have any rules for us to follow here.


Whereas you argue qualities of perfection can exist, highlighting high art as examples, these are artificial concepts of perfection and since the idea you're trying to prove is such a poorly formed one, we can do no better than to leave it as an 'undefined'.

By any standard of 'human' perfection, many of us would agree that the universe certainly isn't perfect, and therefore the behaviour of any supernatural creatured therein are not perfect. Just as you can say society is imperfect and therefore the behaviour of the humans therein is imperfect.

You're completely missing my point. Maybe I'm not phrasing it right.

What you and I agree on is that two people may say that the same work of art, or piece of music, or what have you are different in their quality. There's no argument there. But where you and I differ is that you seem to think that this is an intrinsic quality of the piece of art itself: In other words, the art is only art because a person is there to view it. I submit that the art would still be art if there were no people to witness it. It would have the same qualities regardless of who is there to witness it, or to judge it. Therefore, the fact that 2 different people view the same piece of art as having a different "value" attached to them is the fault of man, and not of the art.

The fact that people live in a world of relative values is the fault of the people themselves, and not the world we live in.

[Rammjet]

If any god were just, they wouldn't use infinite rewards and punishments for finite achievements and crimes.

This is why (although I do not believe in it) I find prospects like reincarnation far more appealing and realistic than notions of grand deities, Goodies and Baddies.

You're completely missing my point. Maybe I'm not phrasing it right.

What you and I agree on is that two people may say that the same work of art, or piece of music, or what have you are different in their quality. There's no argument there. But where you and I differ is that you seem to think that this is an intrinsic quality of the piece of art itself: In other words, the art is only art because a person is there to view it. I submit that the art would still be art if there were no people to witness it. It would have the same qualities regardless of who is there to witness it, or to judge it. Therefore, the fact that 2 different people view the same piece of art as having a different "value" attached to them is the fault of man, and not of the art.

The fact that people live in a world of relative values is the fault of the people themselves, and not the world we live in.

The art is an arrangement of matter, nothing more or less. (although quantum mechanics is applicable here)

It is defined as an expression of human creativity whether it's being viewed or not: This is a physical definition of the piece which is easily confirmed.
Its quality is not a definition and only a human value, a matter of personal view. The art has no official quality* by definition, whether people are viewing it or not.

Perfection, too, requires an observer to exist- and exists only from that one observation point.

*Quality here is referring to the brilliance of the piece and how close it is to perfection. Quality in this scenario does not refer to weight, size, colour or taste- although it is arguable an observer must exist for any of these to be confirmed as true.


We don't know what perfection is and cannot be sure whether it exists- perfection might not even be a possibility because of our current understanding of its nature. I suppose the only way to prove perfection is to find it.

[[1amayzingman]]

If any god were just, they wouldn't use infinite rewards and punishments for finite achievements and crimes.

This is why (although I do not believe in it) I find prospects like reincarnation far more appealing and realistic than notions of grand deities, Goodies and Baddies.

I don't see the contradiction there.

[Bate]

the same people keep debating. when will this end???

[Rammjet]

I don't see the contradiction there.

A system where the response infinitely outweighs the action is an injust one.

Current humans understand justice as balance. If you do a good deed you shall be repayed equally for it. You would not deserve any more repayment than this because you have done nothing to earn any more repayment.

If justice is exponential- and people are rewarded or punished 100 fold for their actions, it's clear that this system, is not a very fair or balanced one.

[Blackie6789]

I'm saying there's no official measure of taste. That's completely true, and saying 'no it isn't' just won't do. You could define quality as social impact, resolution, proportional accuracy, but all of these will only exist in your own mind.

Officially the universe doesn't care about our trivial human matters and therefore doesn't have any rules for us to follow here.


Whereas you argue qualities of perfection can exist, highlighting high art as examples, these are artificial concepts of perfection and since the idea you're trying to prove is such a poorly formed one, we can do no better than to leave it as an 'undefined'.

By any standard of 'human' perfection, many of us would agree that the universe certainly isn't perfect, and therefore the behaviour of any supernatural creatured therein are not perfect. Just as you can say society is imperfect and therefore the behaviour of the humans therein is imperfect.




This is nonsensical.

Morals emerge from evolution; pack animals function better if they protect eachother. This is why animals like wolves and lions will not kill eachother- despite it being easier than catching prey. Animals which do not rely on one another have no need for these morals so they will resort to cannibalism. This is seen in species of shark for example.

Morality existed a long long time before your bible did, and your bible is, in my view, not a good source of morals: I'm not going to consider Gay people 'abominations' just because a man 2000 years ago said so.
For my morality I make decisions based on reasoning: Is behaviour X harmful? If this behaviour is murder- then yes it's an immoral behaviour because it directly damages our gene pool. If this behaviour is homosexuality- then no, it is not immoral, because homosexuals do not cause defined harm to other people.

The Bible was the creation of the world. This is where we get out basis from in society.
God is good.
There is only one God, if there were 2 then a war would break out between them, two greats can't survive together in peace.
Good is stronger than bad.
God is good because he's still alive today.

You probably don't understand this but you must realize how wrong you are.

Morals did not emerge from evolution.

In wolf packs, the strongest live. They are a team as long as your strong. The minute you show weakness, your dead.
That is not a good moral. Very flawed thinking.

We are not perfect simply because we sinned.
If we had not sinned we would still be perfect.
It is something you probably don't understand very well.


Moral is from the Bible, if you agree with it, your contradicting yourself.

[Rammjet]

The Bible was the creation of the world. This is where we get out basis from in society.
God is good.
There is only one God, if there were 2 then a war would break out between them, two greats can't survive together in peace.
Good is stronger than bad.
God is good because he's still alive today.

You probably don't understand this but you must realize how wrong you are.

Morals did not emerge from evolution.

In wolf packs, the strongest live. They are a team as long as your strong. The minute you show weakness, your dead.
That is not a good moral. Very flawed thinking.

We are not perfect simply because we sinned.
If we had not sinned we would still be perfect.
It is something you probably don't understand very well.


Moral is from the Bible, if you agree with it, your contradicting yourself.

The same is true of humans as of wolf packs. The weak do not reproduce as successfully as the strong. Therefore we are left with a majority of capable and willfull people.

This is in fact a good moral, from an evolutionary view point, because it means that your species will be more successful, and that's what it's all about.



Your idea that people who don't base their life on the bible are immoral saddens me. It shows you don't understand the definition of morality.
•ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
You do not have to be a christian to be moral, by defintion. You are incorrect completely.

You've made a lot of claims, with no evidence to support them, and you raise questions. How can somebody be 'perfect' and then 'sin' ? In order for the scenario you propose to have happened, people were always imperfect, and therefore their design, production and producer were contributers to that imperfection.

You don't understand your own argument's implications, and to be honest, much of it verges close to xenophobia and racism. :\

[Blackie6789]

A question for Blackie:

Why would a perfect being place faith over the quality of a person?

Faith is believing in something. Sometimes but not always incredible.
Quality has nothing to do with faith.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says this: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Meaning, if we were judged by works, we would boast. Our outside character would be great but our inside may not be. This is the difference between faith and good works. No matter how much good you do, if you don't have faith in God, it means nothing.

Why? Because you give yourself the glory not Him.

As you said, no matter what Christians are going to heaven,

If they are christians. True christians will go to heaven. Many people call themselves christians yet aren't.

and no matter what non-Christians are going to hell.

Not exactly, if you accept Jesus into your heart you'll go to heaven.

Not as simple as that, you'll know when your saved, it isn't just a small prayer, it' a whole life commitment.

What happens to the good non-Christian, one who lived his life in a good and fair way? What of the bad Christian, the one who uses his faith as a means for self superiority, or for personal gain?

If you have not faith nothing is good in God's eyes. Without faith, anything we do will be for ourselves not God.
Theoretically, the "bad" christian wouldn't technically be a christian.
True, there are some christians who stay in their hole and hope they won't be bothered. Some people will try to stay away and be left alone. Others will upon pressure denounce God.

I must say, a true christian wouldn't fall away from God. It says it in the Bible that once a christian we are saved forever.
You may not be a christian. This means that once you say the prayer, you give your whole life to God.

Meaning, you shouldn't do drugs or stuff like that, you give your whole life to Him.

Surely god would send the first to heaven and the second to hell (or at least have some form of punishment) if he were at all just.

Possibly, I'd say that one may have more "prestige" in heaven but I'm not sure, I'm positive there's a passage in the Bible about this, I'll look it up.

Thanks for the question.

[Rammjet]

Christian people can be good or bad- the definition includes both of them and you cannot say that the ones who are nasty are 'false'

The definition is: 'somebody who believes in/follows doctrines of christianity' this definition does not say they are moral, good, evil, bad or anything inbetween.



Basing your entire argument around faith beign good is incredily, meaningless. Islam is based on faith too, but contradicts christianity. So is Judaism, Sihkism, etc

Faith is just not an argument, because it is the assertion 'I'm not going to argue about this- I'm just right' That's not good enough- you have to prove you are right! Tempting us with ideas of heaven or trying to frighten us with hell won't work because many other religions do the exact same.

[Mfdom]

the same people keep debating. when will this end???

It doesn't; that's the beuty of it. Look at all the paragraphs. O_O

[AreUTalking2Meh]

Here's a picture I made, if it helps to understand it better.



Better view here: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=o56x4h&s=7

You have amazing paint skills.

[Bate]

It doesn't; that's the beuty of it. Look at all the paragraphs. O_O

yah good point. this will probably be viewed by 25000 times sooner or later

[Lancer]

It doesn't; that's the beuty of it. Look at all the paragraphs. O_O

The point is to keep devating so that people will see this and join the debate