Is God really real? page 31

1458 posts

Flag Post

http://www.cracked.com/article_19668_6-scientific-discoveries-that-laugh-in-face-physics.html why is this crap here? put it somewhere so the wise guys and other pricks can kill each other over.

 
Flag Post

Oh and its natural that it doesent seem logical to you when because you think the world is based on the same things you see in computers…besides god doesent have to be ‘MAGIC’ or ilogical think about that!

 
Flag Post

WOW!!! O_o
Well, the subatomic failure of gravity is one (known) thing, but I have no clue about those speed-ups… :D
(Sun could be explained by “throwing up” hot inner stuff very quickly, thus having a much hotter “puke” on the colder surface.)
And the uranium “watching back” is hilariously serious.
Well, the last one isn’t real probably, cause I’ve heard similar stuff and it was barely a mistake or something.

 
Flag Post

its just personal opinoin. ask your self “do you think he is real?” if you say yes then he is, if no then he is not. i think yes

 
Flag Post

Agnostics believe that there is no real way for us to know if there is a god, gods, or divine entity. I share this belief, but I prefer not to be labeled as an agnostic. The fact of the matter is, if believing in something helps you get through the day, or makes you feel better when you end it – it doesn’t matter if its real or not, the happiness and hope that you depend on IS REAL.

 
Flag Post

^^^^^^^^^^^^ :) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Geongus:

Agnostics believe that there is no real way for us to know if there is a god, gods, or divine entity. I share this belief, but I prefer not to be labeled as an agnostic. The fact of the matter is, if believing in something helps you get through the day, or makes you feel better when you end it – it doesn’t matter if its real or not, the happiness and hope that you depend on IS REAL.

And what when people start making laws, etc, based on something that someone believes is real?

 
Flag Post

I don’t only believe that God and Jesus are real, but I know it to. I have been healed of all my physical injuries and my addictions. I have even felt my Lord Jesus touch me when no one was around to touch me. He’s been bringing me up more and more since I started doing things his way and not my way.

 
Flag Post

Well my opinion is mine no one can take that from me.. people belive in god. thats fine. i dont and thats fine. whats up whit all the discussions? Let people who belive, keep on beliving.. let people who dont keep on not beleving..
Who cares.. Its my opinion and i dont care what other people belive. its all i have my “belives” …
“The truth is out there”

 
Flag Post

Why, yes, the truth may be out there, but wouldn’t the sensible option be wait and see, instead of just claiming that there is a god?

Also, it’s kinda difficult to let people keep on believing when it’s used as a justification for, say, making laws.

I have even felt my Lord Jesus touch me

And how do you know this?

 
Flag Post

Yeah well.. when people make laws and stuff according to religoin.. that just wrong.. let people belive still.. as long as they keep there belives to em self and not try makeing me obey by there religion/laws im fine whit it. btw hate mormons just cause they knock on my door preaching.. otherwise just let em belive.. who gives a fuck:P

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by drandole:

I don’t only believe that God and Jesus are real, but I know it to.

How?

I have been healed of all my physical injuries and my addictions.

How?

I have even felt my Lord Jesus touch me when no one was around to touch me.

And how do you know that’s what happened?

He’s been bringing me up more and more since I started doing things his way and not my way.

So you’re basically saying you’ve become a thoughtless husk doing only what you’re told?

Also, how?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

F
Read our discussion with DR, it’ll give you more insight. :D
Did I ever CLAIMED that I “have the empirical proof for religion”? O_o
Except, I don’t NEED it. :D
But in SCIENCE, yes, I do demand it, highly.

Willful ignorance may impress your church congregation, but it’s really something you should not boast about or even be proud of.

 
Flag Post

F
Yup, same to you.
That’s why I demand OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE PROOF from science, the type that any idiot would have to agree to.
Otherwise, it’s as religiously dogmatic as religion itself is, or worse (cause it claims objectivity and knowledge, unlike religion’s belief system, but resorts to the same type of “proofs”).
Again, read our discussion with DR, I have no mood to repeat some 5 pages all over just for YOU… O_o

 
Flag Post

^Provide obvious undeniable proof that there is a magic invisible man in space who hates queers and made everything.

 
Flag Post

That’s why I demand OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE PROOF from science, the type that any idiot would have to agree to.
Otherwise, it’s as religiously dogmatic as religion itself is, or worse (cause it claims objectivity and knowledge, unlike religion’s belief system, but resorts to the same type of “proofs”).

I think there’s a part of the discussion I haven’t touched on yet. There’s a few issues here:

1. I’m glad you agree that religion doesn’t claim objectivity and “knowledge”.
2. At the very worst, science can’t be worse than religion. Claiming objectivity and not having it won’t make you worse than those who don’t have it when they aren’t claiming it either.
3. Science, or anybody, doesn’t need “obvious undeniable proof” to have more evidence than those who don’t have it, or otherwise immediately be as dogmatic as religion. If you have one piece of evidence, you have more evidence than those who don’t have evidence.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

F
Yup, same to you.
That’s why I demand OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE PROOF from science, the type that any idiot would have to agree to.
Otherwise, it’s as religiously dogmatic as religion itself is, or worse (cause it claims objectivity and knowledge, unlike religion’s belief system, but resorts to the same type of “proofs”).
Again, read our discussion with DR, I have no mood to repeat some 5 pages all over just for YOU… O_o

No Somebody, not the same to me.
I need evidence to believe…same goes with science and religion.
You don’t need evidence for your religion and you dispute the evidence when given by science.
So we most definitely are not the same.
I am willing to change my opinions if given empirical evidence.
You have basically said the opposite.

 
Flag Post

DR
Hi. :D
We kinda can’t stop it, right? :DDD
(Just joking, we have basically came to a kind of an agreement in our talks, at least I feel so.)
1. Religion doesn’t claim knowledge, tradition does, and we went through it before.
(Neither claims objectivity simply due to using the personal experience method.)
But not the point, cause Mr. F here DEFINITELY is talking about a “personal faith without national tradition” type religion (aka to be honest, Christianity, ain’t I right?).
2. Yes, it can.
Claiming superiority while not having it, is worse than not claiming it.
It’s deceiving people into THINKING something is superior in some way, while it actually isn’t.
Basically, that’s how MOST advertisements work – they are generally selling same-type near-same-quality products, but each of them is “the best in the world”.
(Which is why I laugh at most advertisements…)
And as of science – do I need to bring quotes from all over this forum about “how science is more objective=right=superior than religion”.
If and when it IS, I’m totally OK to see it, EMPIRICALLY.
But when it’s not – I also have no wish to see empty bragging…
3. Erm… You seem not to understand my point here.
Dogmatism is considering ANY “proof” to be such, if the “experts” say so, be it science OR religion.
This is far from having empirical evidence, which doesn’t NEED to be “accepted by experts”, even you and me can SEE, how it truly IS evidence (with MINIMAL background knowledge on the subject).

F
Me too.
But I have accepted “evidence through national tradition” (which DR highly dislikes, but it’s a personal choice both ways), thus I’m out of the “doubting state, while looking for personal evidence”.
And ANYWAYS, you can’t FORCE G-d to give you empirical evidence – you can either see it and accept it yourself (life has WAY options to provide you with ample evidence, just keep your eyes open and mind ready to accept) OR sit in denial forever (and nothing or nobody will ever break through that wall, cause G-d gives everyone FREE choice, whether to OPEN one’s eyes or SHUT them hard).
I’m serious, there are tons of REAL-LIFE events, that “religious” see as “evidence for G-d”, while “irreligious” see as mere “nature” or “coincidence”.
And both are “right”, from THEIR predetermined disposition.
This dispute is actually a mere difference of everyone’s choice to view life.

Oh, and this is why claiming objectivity while not having it (aka “winning the dispute”), is worse than “playing by the rules” (aka acknowledging the CHOICE).
There’s nothing bad in EITHER chosen option, as long as you remember, that it’s a CHOICE
(Anyone can disagree with me – but you won’t change my opinion on it… :D)

 
Flag Post

Claiming superiority while not having it, is worse than not claiming it.

It’s an emotional response to an emotional response. If somebody claims to be better while he isn’t, claiming him to be worse is the same thing. Look at it in a more neutral way.

And as of science – do I need to bring quotes from all over this forum about “how science is more objective=right=superior than religion”.

Science doesn’t do that. Individual gamers do. We’ve been over this too.

Dogmatism is considering ANY “proof” to be such, if the “experts” say so, be it science OR religion.
This is far from having empirical evidence, which doesn’t NEED to be “accepted by experts”, even you and me can SEE, how it truly IS evidence (with MINIMAL background knowledge on the subject).

So you are talking about the people blindly accepting evidence without checking it up? If so, of course I agree.

Oh, and this is why claiming objectivity while not having it (aka “winning the dispute”), is worse than “playing by the rules” (aka acknowledging the CHOICE).
There’s nothing bad in EITHER chosen option, as long as you remember, that it’s a CHOICE…
(Anyone can disagree with me – but you won’t change my opinion on it… :D)

Again, I guess you are talking about people here instead of science. Everyone has the choice to go for objective knowledge or religious beliefs. Neither is more faulty, since it isn’t inherently better to have proper scientific evidence for claims than to mindlessly believe in whatever comes up first. As long as we get the concepts right. Science is objective. Some scientists aren’t. As long as we weed out the rotten apples (scientists making up stuff), we’ll keep it reasonable for everyone.

 
Flag Post

DR
I really wish ALL scientists (and ESPECIALLY people that pretend to “know science”) would think EXACTLY like YOU
Cause then science WOULD be pretty much objective.
While I’m of a very strong opinion, it ISN’T in REAL-LIFE
No jokes nor offenses – pure semi-empirical opinion.
(I’ve read about enough “science bloopers” and “reconsiderations” and other “mistakes”, to NOT consider HUMAN scientists to be as objective as YOU think they SHOULD be… There’s no such REAL-LIFE entity called “science” – it’s ALWAYS made up from actual “scientists”. I hope you got my point…)

 
Flag Post

Somebody – "There’s no such REAL-LIFE entity called “science” "

The same can be more convincingly said of “god”. — “There’s no such REAL-LIFE entity called “god”

In fact ‘science’ is much more a real-life entity than ‘god’ is…mainly because of the EMPIRICAL evidence that is used to back up scientific claims. Science does exist. It is used to create everything we have.

 
Flag Post

F
No, you don’t get my point.
“Science” isn’t an actual ENTITY – it’s a mere CONCEPT of thinking or grouping data the same way.
(Same goes for “religion” or “honor”, both being CONCEPTS, not ENTITIES.)
Scientists, on the other hand, are real-life people with real-life lives and minds.
They can be right, wrong, honest, liars, stupid, smart, ANYTHING human beings can be.
Science can’t – it’s a mere concept.
So, the wording “science is right” is as absurd as “science is lying” – cause in both examples, it’s HUMANS (scientists) that are either right or liars.
I doubt it’s THAT hard to understand the difference…
Oh, and there’s a difference (for me) between god=concept (like honor=concept) and G-d=entity (like Universe=entity).
You can disagree, but the way I see it, is exactly this.

 
Flag Post

god loves every one and he does exist if you would like to chat with me on this subject then send me a PM

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 12grayson:

god loves every one

How do you know and which one?

and he does exist if you would like to chat with me on this subject then send me a PM

Yeah, that’s kinda the point of this thread to discuss without said chatting or PMs.

And with that said, how?

 
Flag Post

Certainly he is.