Does God Exist?

[Demagog]

I keep telling everyone this isn't supposed to be about religions, but they never listen.

The original name of this thread was "Religion." Maybe I should have left it that way :-p

[xpanterx]

A perfectly designed universe from atoms up to galaxys... I think it's all random 

[Delreich]

A perfectly designed universe from atoms up to galaxys...

In what way is it perfect? In what way is it designed? Asserting things doesn't automagically make them true...


If I were to ask "Does Santa Exist?", what answer would I get?

[BluePriest]

A perfectly designed universe from atoms up to galaxys...

In what way is it perfect? In what way is it designed? Asserting things doesn't automagically make them true...


If I were to ask "Does Santa Exist?", what answer would I get?

Of Course He Does!!!! Hes my friend on Myspace, and I went to work with him! Although... If that was santa... then The burger King Guy and santa are the same people...
/Sarcasm (Although at my last work, there was someone that came to work on 2 seperate occasions as santa and the burger king guy.)

Something interesting Ive noted. Lots of reasons people give for not believing isnt neccessarily stemming from lack of evidence as much as it is from lack of liking what that "god's" view of life is.

I dont always like the choices my manager makes, however, I cant just say that since I dont like what my manager says, I dont believe said manager exists. The only difference between the 2 are that 1 you can see, and 1 you cant, so that logic cant be used, and its not really the best way to base your decision on whether you believe it or not, especially in case you are wrong.

And when my manager makes a decision I dont like, lots of times I can look at it just a little closer and realize, even if I didnt understand it, there really was my best interests in mind.


BTW, back to the santa thing for a moment. I know you werent trying to use this as an example, but in case someone does, its a horrible example to try to compare santa claus to God.
Heres why
When the image of santa (the one that flies around on reigndeer and live on the north pole) was created, he was only created as a story. nothing more, nothing less. Even though he was based off of a real person, the santa clause that kids here about, has never been intended to be believed past someones childhood years.

However, god, whatever god that may be, was meant to be believed the entire life. Wasnt meant to be a fairy tale. So the origins (even if you do believe they were both created by man, and man alone) are completely different when you look at how they are meant to be viewed in modern day.

Put simply.
Santa-Meant to be fake and for fun
"God", "god" "Allah", Whatever you want to say-Meant to be real and a lifestyle

[Delreich]

Something interesting Ive noted. Lots of reasons people give for not believing isnt neccessarily stemming from lack of evidence as much as it is from lack of liking what that "god's" view of life is.

My reasons for not believing in Odin, Thor and the others is quite simple: there's no good reason to believe in the first place (that I've encountered so far, at least).

I dont always like the choices my manager makes, however, I cant just say that since I dont like what my manager says, I dont believe said manager exists. The only difference between the 2 are that 1 you can see, and 1 you cant, so that logic cant be used, and its not really the best way to base your decision on whether you believe it or not, especially in case you are wrong.

That's the only difference, really? You consider your manager to be equal to God?
The obvious difference (obvious to me at least) is that you can go up to your manager an ask him/her about it and get an answer. Can't do that with God.
There's also the fact that it's actually your manager telling you something, rather than some supposed representative as it is in the case of God (unless you're schizophrenic).

Put simply.
Santa-Meant to be fake and for fun
"God", "god" "Allah", Whatever you want to say-Meant to be real and a lifestyle

Repeating myself here, but whatever. Asserting things doesn't automagically make them true...

[PhuzzY LogiK]

BTW, back to the santa thing for a moment. I know you werent trying to use this as an example, but in case someone does, its a horrible example to try to compare santa claus to God.
Heres why
When the image of santa (the one that flies around on reigndeer and live on the north pole) was created, he was only created as a story. nothing more, nothing less. Even though he was based off of a real person, the santa clause that kids here about, has never been intended to be believed past someones childhood years.

However, god, whatever god that may be, was meant to be believed the entire life. Wasnt meant to be a fairy tale. So the origins (even if you do believe they were both created by man, and man alone) are completely different when you look at how they are meant to be viewed in modern day.

Do you know what "gospel" means?  It's the "good news".  It's a story, not historical documents.

Do you know Paul expected Christ to return within his own lifetime?  How can you say how "they are meant to be viewed in modern day", when most early christians didn't think "modern day" would occur?

In 1 Thes 4:14-18, Paul writes: "We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.  Therefore encourage each other with these words."

The idea that we "know not the time or hour of Christ's return" came several decades later, after most of the disciples were dead and they had to make sense of why the second coming hadn't happened yet.

[taikanatur]

Well, one thing I know for sure: fake gods DO exist 

_{My bad, couldnt resist the temptation...}

[PuppyChow]

Phuzzy, I'm not saying you're wrong; in fact you're right. The people back then DID think he would come again in their lifetimes. Just like people today think that the apocalypse is upon us. That doesn't make them right.

But, question: How do you know, based on that quote, that Paul wasn't referring to "we" as in "human kind"?

[acelink]

Something interesting Ive noted. Lots of reasons people give for not believing isnt neccessarily stemming from lack of evidence as much as it is from lack of liking what that "god's" view of life is.

My reasons for not believing in Odin, Thor and the others is quite simple: there's no good reason to believe in the first place (that I've encountered so far, at least).

I don't believe in Odin or anything similar but I do find it weird how words derive from the pagan beliefs and still are used.  Wednesday originated from "Odin's Day". Thusday "Thor's Day".  & there are some others.

I find it ironic English religious people still use Pagan-God derived words.  I figured they would come up with something new or call days of the week First/Second/Third.

[Demagog]

Isn't it also ironic that the first six months were named after Roman mythology? (In most cases, gods)

Isn't it also ironic that atheists use the same calendar and dating methods Christians use? If you're an atheist, you wouldn't really be sticking to your beliefs if you said the year was 2010 AD (anno domini: in the year of our lord).

The only reason they do use AD is because the entire world uses it. If they suddenly started using a different dating system, things would get quite confusing.

That's why Christians and those of other beliefs use the names for the days of the weeks derived from the Pagans. It was used so long, it became standard, and using something different would cause confusion.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

Phuzzy, I'm not saying you're wrong; in fact you're right. The people back then DID think he would come again in their lifetimes. Just like people today think that the apocalypse is upon us. That doesn't make them right.

But, question: How do you know, based on that quote, that Paul wasn't referring to "we" as in "human kind"?

Well, he was writing to the Thessalonians as they were being persecuted and killed (or "asleep" in that translation).  He's essentially consoling them by saying their persecution will not last long, as Christ's return is near.  What sense does it make to tell the Thessalonians that the living will join the dead if he thought all of them would be dead at the time of the second coming?

Furthermore, his tone there is markedly different from 2 Timothy.  At that point, he had realized that Christ would not return in his life, and changes his style to instead give advice for the future (2 Timothy 4:1-8).  If he always believed that Christ was going to return at such a later date, why didn't he give that broader advice to the Thessalonians as well?  In 1 Thessalonians it is "we"; ~25 years later in 2 Timothy it is "you" (people of the future).  Why would he change that?  If he was talking about humanity without respect to time in both books, he should have still said "we".

Last, in Hebrews (which we now know was not written by Paul, but was believed to be for the first century or two), it is mentioned that Jesus dying on the cross signaled the "end of the ages" (Hebrews 9:23-28). **

And it DOES matter if Paul was right.  Paul never met Jesus.  There is no evidence Paul even met a disciple.  Paul didn't start writing until 20 years after Jesus' death AND spoke a different language than the disciples, so any story of Jesus he heard had to have gone through [multiple?] translations over two decades.

Paul claimed all of his knowledge came from divine visions.  If his beliefs were wrong (or changed over time), did the visions lie?  Could Paul not accurately interpret them?  What other implications follow?



**  In addition to the verses, I also tend to agree with a lot of Bart Ehrman's work, and in one of his books he addresses this subject.  I can dig it up if you want.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

Isn't it also ironic that atheists use the same calendar and dating methods Christians use? If you're an atheist, you wouldn't really be sticking to your beliefs if you said the year was 2010 AD (anno domini: in the year of our lord).

The only reason they do use AD is because the entire world uses it. If they suddenly started using a different dating system, things would get quite confusing.

While they continue with the numbering system established by monks, any serious literature now refers to dates as 2010 CE (Common Era), to avoid the appearance of the prejudice you mentioned.

Your overall statement still stands, though.  It's a trivial point.