Crosswords3 mins ago
Is there a god?
750 Answers
Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LeedsRhinos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
L.R You are doing one or more of the following:
1. Falling for history's greatest (yet strangely most obvious) lie.
2. Participating in the spread of a very successful yet nonetheless harmful cult.
3. Stepping outside of your own beliefs to support your own misguided beliefs (God is all powerful and benign) and blaming humans for "His" failings.
4. Closing your eyes to all the evidence that contradicts or challenges your beliefs for no other reason than that it is more comfortable for you to believe in a benign all-powerful being than to consider the possibility that we're all alone and nothing is predetermined or guided expressly for our benefit!
5. And worst of all, you ignore all of the bad in the world and ask us to accept that if we pray (or are blessed by you and your like) we will be exempt from the sort of thing that happens to those in the third world or in train wrecks or disease, simply because you (and your like) prayed for us!!
Sorry but I find that offensive in the extreme. I suggest you sit down and think really hard about your beliefs before you offer your opinions. Yes, even athiests can be offended by religious comments!
That's the poorest of all reasons to suggest we were created!
If we are too complex to have evolved by natural processes then you surely have to ask the same about God.
How did God come about?
He is so much more complex than we are so he raises even larger questions than he answers.
To suggest that He is infinite and transcends all scientific questioning is (in my opinion) to take yourself out of the debate and place yourself in the "Correspondent is happy to believe in fairies" or "Deluded" box!
If you have nothing more concrete then I suggest you read your Bible and stay away from "real" debates!
Hey, ease off, Azimov!! You can express your opinions without sounding so ******! Perhaps if you tried considering all the evidence around you with an open mind, you'll discover that God does exist!
pls check out this link "www.watchtower.org/library/g/1999/2/8/article_02.htm"
just check it out with an open mind, and let me know what you think afterwards,ok?
The purpose of being "alive" is to better ourselves and elevate ourselves. That way we can achieve greatness in this world and possibly (if u blv in religion) draw us closer to a higher source.
On the subject of religion...I think that as long as you blv in 1 higher power then thats all you need.
The problem with some religions is that God apparently whispered into the ear of 1 single "inspired" person and then they declared that they had seen/spoken to God.
I'm not saying religion X or Y is wrong, but face the facts, show me a religion where there were thousands of witness's to God's power and that would be better than 1 enlightened man's account of his experences with God...
God would not be so unfair to us all by speaking to only 1 messenger!
I have been asking my self the same question. I think there are great similarities between the religions of the world and I am inclined to believe that this is the same god that is interpreted in slightly different ways. However I can't just say it's all rubbish because there is much more to humans than flesh and blood. I have read every answer to your question and it seems to me that on the whole athiests get quite offended by religious ideas. I used to be the same - I'm still an athiest but there's somethings I don't understand and can't explain.
-- answer removed --
lol IR you are most amusing to talk of open mindedness and yet post links to absolute tripe like that. if you believe that is convincing proof then go ahead and believe. but by the way i also believe in the concept of fairies. i have never seen or heard one, they have never had any physical effect on the world around me, but because so many people tell me they exist and if i believe in them i am promised a place in paradise this is enough for me. THINK man. logic dictates there is no god. i dont have to explain everything to believe there is no god. however the more we discover the more god becomes redundant because there is less religious zealots can point to using the god of gaps. basically, i regard religion as a form of mental illness. however the sheep in humanity loves to follow, so all you sheep say baaaa and follow along as you're told.
I don't personally believe in God, but i think there is one ( or several in some religions) if you choose to believe in him. I know that sounds weird when I just said I don't believe, but I think god will only exist if you believe in him. Some people take comfort in god and they rely on him to be there to talk to in times of need and I think that if it comforts people then it can only be a good thing. What I dont agree with is people forcing religion on others, I went to a school which wasnt meant to be religious but we still sang hymns and said prayers in assembly. And also Johovers Witnesses (Sorry about the spelling) who knock on your door and try to convert you, i think thats wrong too.
people don't want to believe that want to dimissthe right circumstances could develop into or world. The universe is endless without the capability for life, if there was a supreme being why not make many worlds with life. people also want to dismiss that the earth is 4.5billion years old, why did a supreme being twiddle his thumbs for 4,499,990,000 before making man.
...and nevermind the outlandish things in the bible we are supposed to have faith that they happened, the bible was written over 1500 years by 40 authors, wouldn't any author embellish his book to get chosen for the bible. there is other books that didn't make the final bible because they were boring. since it took 1500 years for the bible to be finished, did the people in the first hundred years only have a few chapters to base their faith in.
Azimov--are you from England? I lament the fact that so many in this so-called progressive United States of America are so backwards in so many ways, not the least of which is the anti-intellectual disease which has spread and taken firm root in this country. There are several outstanding books for skeptics, and others who are curious. One is, "The Impossibility of God." And fabulous websites including www.atheism.about.com. Here are a few interesting logical arguments I've encountered, mainly in the two sources named above:
1. If god is omnipotent, and can be all things at once, i.e. a chair or a rat or even nothing at all, then whatever one believes in holds true, including believing in nothing. All beliefs would be valid. If god is not capable of being all things at once, then one must accept that god is NOT omnipotent, but limited in some way.
Continued from my last post:
2. Here's one about god's supposed "omniscience": "Now what about this god's freedom? A legion of contradictions emerges when we consider a god which is both omniscient and possesses free will. Some theologians readily admit that the same problems as above exist here, but have yet to invent an adequate solution. For a god to be free in action (possess free will), then its future must not be fully known in advance - there must be the possibility for a change of mind. If a god cannot freely alter its actions, then it cannot be said to be free. But this means that the god itself cannot perfectly know its own future. There must be true propositions about the future which it does not know. For example, if a hurricane is approaching Orlando, poised to punish the city for its tolerance of homosexuality, we simply have to sit and wait for it to hit. A traditional sort of god, however, has the choice to turn it away. If the decision to do so or to allow it to hit is to be free, this god cannot know for sure what it will do in advance. Since this god cannot know for sure if it will intervene, then it cannot know for sure if the hurricane really will hit. The same is true for every single event which this god can alter.
Continued:
3. No god is "worthy" of worship. A god who would coerce anyone into worship, the consequence of eternal damnation being the consequence, is simply NOT worthy of worship. No omnipotent god would be in any need of worship. The underlying need for worship always involves control, ego, self-aggrandizement. This is not consistent with the concept of a benevolent god, who supports free will.
The last point I'd like to make (whew!) is that the problem with so many is their tendency to bifurcate: to see only two choices from which to pick a solution to a problem. "This False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term "False Dilemma"; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered. This is sometimes referred to as the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle" because it can occur as a misapplication of the Law of the Excluded Middle."
Continued, and my last post{grin}:
How does this apply to the argument for or against god? Well, here's an example: Belief in paranormal events can easily proceed from a False Dilemma Fallacy:
4. Either John Edward is a con-man, or he really can communicate with the dead. He seems too sincere to be a con-man, and I'm not so gullible that I can be easily fooled, therefore he communicates with the dead and there is an afterlife. Just such an argument was often made by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his defenses of spiritualists. He, like so many of his time and ours, was convinced of the sincerity of those who claimed to be able to communicate with the dead, just as he was convinced of his own superior abilities to detect fraud.
The argument above actually contains more than one False Dilemma. The first and most obvious problem is the idea that Edward must either be lying or genuine - it ignores the possibility that he has been fooling himself into thinking that he has such powers.
A second False Dilemma is the unstated assumption that either the arguer is very gullible or can quickly spot a fake.
Good Luck, and don't stop using
Sorry, there is more to that last argument:
"It may be that the the arguer is indeed good at spotting fakes, but doesn't have the training to spot fake spiritualists. Even skeptical people assume that they are good observers when they aren't - that's why trained magicians are good to have in such investigations. Scientists have a poor history of detecting fake psychics because in their field, they are not trained to detect fakery - magicians, however, are trained in exactly that."
And finally: Finally, in each of the false dilemmas, there is no defense of the option which is rejected. How do we know that Edward isn't a con-man? How do we know that the arguer isn't gullible? These assumptions are just as questionable as the point under contention, so assuming them without further defense results in begging the question. For those who took the time reading these arguments, thank you! And keep refining those critical thinking skills!
