Post
We aren't cavemen praying for the Sun to return, for our crops to be fertile or supernatural intervention to vanquish an enemy... this is an age of reason and understanding, the only places where there are wars in this World are where organised religion rears its' barbaric head(s), discuss.... (Let's see who wants to stone me first? which religion of love peace and tolerance will chuck the first pebble?)
Sean8342 Sean8342 41-45, M 14 Answers Sep 15, 2012 in Religion

Your Response

Cancel

Einstein was a Christian,simply because he admitted that he could not discount the existence of God..I,like many people take more risks than he did,but I remember his wisdom..

Best Answer

nothing like hedging your bets... no one gets out of here alive!

Best Answer

" Religion was my greatest invention!" - Satan

Best Answer

"Religion was my greatest invention!" Santa (TM owned by Coke-a-Cola Inc.)

Best Answer

It's your opinion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You MIGHT be right, but you could also be wrong. Perhaps the wisest course would be to keep an open mind.

Best Answer

No not my opinion, it's a question... I have an open mind uncluttered by organised religon

Best Answer

I respectfully disagree with your entire "premise." That is all.

Best Answer

why?

Best Answer

It makes no "sense" to me, for all the carrying on about "reason" & "logic." There are deeper "truths" than these, which the true heart of everyone knows.

Best Answer

what 'true heart'? what are you on about? truths are truths because they can be reasoned to be 'so' through logic... if not then they aren't truths are they? think about it....

Best Answer

The "true heart" is your immortal soul & spirit, the part of you that has never been separated from the Creator God, despite the "illusion" of separation that we humans are so dad-blamed attached to.

Best Answer

what immortal soul and spirit? give me one shred of evidence they exist? or one tiny dot of evidence that the Creator God exists... the illusion is that any of these things exist... free yourself and accept the truth

Best Answer

I haven't seen any evidence that these do NOT exist -- so I'd say we have a "Mexican stand-off," wouldn't you?

Best Answer

No not until you can show they do exist.. if you say something is true and it's a fact then you have to show proof it is a fact.... you said it was an illusion that the soul & spirit was seperated from God when the illusion is that they exist, show me they do

Best Answer

A "fact" & a "truth" aren't necessarily the same thing. For instance, if you say, "My mother-in-law is 85 years old," that is a "fact" that can be shown by her official birth certificate. But if you say, "My mother-in-law is a hateful old hag," that may or may not be the "truth," subject to "interpretation."

Best Answer

Easy to prove if someone is a hateful old had by looking at how they conduct themself and any behaviour which they are guilt yof which reaches those standards. Truth and fact are pretty close together a fact is something that can be proven to be true.... still no evidence for your argument I see

Best Answer
6 More Responses

I'm happy for people to get comfort from the support of an imaginary friend. It doesn't cost me in any way shape or form.

Best Answer

But what if that imaginary friend says you are imperfect and anyone who doesn't agree with your views is evil and is damned to hell (or some similar place) and there is a proactive 'need' to be censured anyone who disagrees with the imaginary friend? Dolly Parton never told anyone to pity or attack people who didn't buy her LP's did she

Best Answer

You're referring to 'nutters' - most people who follow a faith are moderate and peace loving. The insane minority would find some other reason to justify their dogma and aggression if religion didn't exist. I mean, you do, don't you?

Best Answer

Not sure which parts of the World you have been to but most followers of organised religions are quite happy turn a blind eye to the 'nutty' element.... recently in Libya there was a mob of 50 or so attacking the US embassy and 50,000 people looking the other way (sure you can easily find plenty other exaples of such human behaviour focused around organised religion)

Best Answer

Have you been to Libya Sean?

Best Answer

I have been to Libya... (not for the last 22 years though). Was jobbing on a telecom contract as a laborer, with my cousin (who had been an engineer with the GPO) anyhow a load of us Brits were staying in a small compound, 4 caravans, near to this smallish town.... anyhow the local police chief turns up and tells us to get our stuff and get out asap the local imam had declared we were drinking alcohol and were to be 'punished'... so we had no choice but to leave... we hadn't been drinking, no right of appeal and there would have been no mercy I can bet you that

Best Answer

oh, well if you had a bad experience at the hands of some extremist nutters, then yes, we should definitely ban organised religion the world over.

Best Answer

Yaaaayyyyy :o) All hail Dolly instead....

Best Answer
4 More Responses

1. You claim God absolutely does not exist. 2. You have limited knowledge 3. It's possible God exists outside your knowledge. 4. Therefore you can 'believe' God does not exist, but cannot prove it. 5. Ergo, atheism is a belief, not an ob<x>jective truth.

Best Answer

That's nonsense. It's like qualifying the statement "the Earth is flat" as an objective truth when it's patently false. Atheism (Nihilism, really) cannot co-exist with Theism; one of them has to be true and the other false.

Best Answer

That will eventually be the answer but right now we just don't know... oh! hang on you do... because you do.... no reason no evidence.... do you also consider the Earth to be flat? is that what you are going to try and push next? :o)

Best Answer

My argument is based upon the best of what we do know in science. The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious statement nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported, as we've seen, by the vast majority of cosmologists today. So I'm simply saying that the best scientific evidence we have today supports the truth of that premise. And from that, the rest of the deductive argument follows. So in no way is this an appeal to ignorance, to try to punt to God to explain what we don't understand. It is a natural conclusion from the logical validity of the preceding premisses. In other words, it's simple, mundane logic.

Best Answer

The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious statement nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, clearly states that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater one must have a ** finite beginning **. I'm not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself refute beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube while proving that our universe had to have a finite beginning.
As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)
Moreover, Quentin Smith, a philosopher of science at the University of Western Michigan reinforces this further when he states, "It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity entails that it is impossible to extend the spacetime manifold beyond the singularity. This effectively rules out the idea that the singularity is the effect of some prior natural process." ("Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology")
As such, your fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It's just more atheistic folderol and wishful thinking.
This creates the necessity for there to exist a first uncaused-cause for something cannot come from nothing as I've already shared. I've also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent and personal. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God.

Best Answer

You don't guide your life by the precepts of logic and reason? (That would explain a lot, actually, lol)

Best Answer

Like I said, it explains a lot, lol. Given your predilection for the irrational and the insane, I assume you take Evolution as fact, no? lol :)

Best Answer

Except for the fact that the evolution of one organism into another has never been directly observed. The argument here is that this takes millions of years - which no one has ever witnessed because, well, it takes millions of years - but the fossil record, which is supposed to show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another over the course of millions of years, shows the opposite but it is hoped that the “missing” fossils of these intermediate species will one day be found. In summary, the sole evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution. If that's not circular reasoning, what is? :)

Best Answer

We all know that something can't come from nothing. (Not Hawking’s pseudo-definition of “nothing” but the concept that describes the absence of anything; the state of nonexistence.) If it could, why doesn't everything or anything? Why aren't dinosaurs, for instance, popping out of thin air, devouring everyone in sight? Why aren't we afraid of elephants suddenly popping into existence in the sky and raining down on us; crushing everyone walking down the street? If nothing can in fact produce something why would it discriminate? In the end, such an argument is a case of special pleading.
Since something can't come from nothing, then the natural questions that follow are, “Where did the universe come from 13.70 billion years ago?” and “What caused it to come into existence in the first place?”
Therefore:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The space-time universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.
(3) Therefore, the space-time universe has a cause.
(4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent and personal being.
(5) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent and personal being is the definition of God.
(6) Therefore, God caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago.
Whatever this cause is, it must possess certain necessary properties in order for it to be the cause of the physical space-time universe. For instance, first and foremost, this cause must itself be uncaused. Why? Because an infinite regress of causes is impossible. (Lookup “Hilbert's Grand Hotel” if you're interested in a more in-depth analysis.)
Second, this uncaused cause must transcend space-time because it itself created space-time. It is therefore, spaceless.
Third, since this uncaused cause exists beyond space and time it is must be a non-physical or immaterial cause. Why? Because physical things exist only in space – they have dimensions.
Fourth, this uncaused cause must necessarily also be timeless for the simple fact that it itself doesn't exist in space-time.
Fifth, it must also be changeless. As I'm sure you're well aware, all matter exists in a state of constant flux. This is especially apparent at the atomic level. Since this uncaused cause is immaterial it is not subject to the same forces that affect matter, therefore, it is unchanging.
Sixth, this uncaused cause is obviously unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent, for it brought matter, energy, space and time into existence completely on its own.
So, to sum up, whatever it is that caused the universe to come into existence 13.70 billion years ago it must be beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging and omnipotent.
But we're not done for there is one more property of this uncaused cause that we can deduce from what we know of the universe. For this we have to take a closer look at cause and effect. Here's what I mean: if a cause is sufficient to produce it's effect then the effect must also be present. The two are joined at the hip, so to speak. You can't have one without the other.
Let me borrow from an illustration to make this clearer. “Suppose that the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0°C. If the temperature were below 0°C from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. Once the cause is given, the effect must be given as well.” (http://bit.ly/WQtgZY)
The issue is, if we have in fact a timeless, transcendent cause why isn't the effect permanent as well? In other words, if this timeless, transcendent cause actually caused the universe, why hasn't the universe always been around? How can a cause be eternal but its effect commence a finite time ago? We know the universe is about 13.70 billion years old but we've also deduced that whatever caused the universe must be transcendent and timeless.
The only way this is possible is if this timeless, transcendent, uncaused cause were also a free agent – a being with free will who can act of its own volition. As we all know, free will is the hallmark of personhood.
So here we arrive at this uncaused cause of the universe 13.70 billion years ago that is beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent … and personal.
This is the very definition - of God :)

Best Answer

I've given you a ton more evidence than there is for Evolution yet you swallow that tripe whole; hook, line and sinker. Why discriminate?

Best Answer
6 More Responses

Well, call me an idiot. But first read Lee Strobel's book "The Case For Christ". He is a lawyer, and former athiest, who set out to prove that God didn't exist. Instead he found overwhelming evidence that God really does exist and the Bible is true. Have a nice eternity.

Best Answer

Can I write a book trying to prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist 100%? will the fact that I can't do this 100% mean that I have to accept that it does? and as for being an atheist and a lawyer.... sounds like a good combination for spinning a good yarn that will line his pockets... you sure you are happy with calling yourself an idiot?

Best Answer

You haven't read the book and you won't so from my perspective your the one with a problem. You can return to living your life based on assumptions.

Best Answer

You assume I haven't read the book.... AND that the book on the Loch Ness monster is less valid.... shame on you x

Best Answer

Your missing a point here, if it makes people happy or gives them comfort in a time of need, then religion is a great thing. Even for a non-believer i truly respect others beliefs and deeply admire them for their faith. I have never been able to have much religious faith so i respect that they could believe something they cannot physically see or touch or hear

Best Answer

Never said religion, I said organised religion

Best Answer

religious teachings are open to interpretation by imperfect and sometimes prejudice human beings, which creates problems. The flip side is that religious teachings can make people more peaceful tolerant, and loving. They can cause hate, too its all how one deciphers any holy book

Best Answer

Doesn't the word "religion" imply a certain level of organization--a sacred document/person and a set of beliefs/practices which its adherents follow?
That's as opposed to "spirituality," which may be more amorphous, not necessarily following a particular person, creed, or practice--yet still feels attached to the meaningful sacralization of life.

Best Answer

So you agree with the question then? Any organised religion that claims to be the one true religion and is loving, forgiving and tolerant can't be the one true religion (etc) if it inspires people to hate, despise, kill etc...

Best Answer

franklyspeaking.... yes... I prefer to take a few truths from here and there.... the rational 'ones'

Best Answer
2 More Responses

This is a joke, right?

Best Answer

why is it a joke?

Best Answer

Because you can't possibly be that poorly read in history.

Best Answer

am I poorly read in history? are you qualified to make that statement?

Best Answer

Yes, I am, as one who has studied medieval history and earlier.

Best Answer

Clearly you will see my question is just that then, a question, not a statement and the full question finishes with a 'discuss'. If you think it's all a joke say why...
Yes one of my many degrees is in history (specialising in British/US/Chinese socio economic history from 1750 to 1920) History is also a hobby there isn't an episode of Time Team I haven't watched!!! rofl.... to why is the question a joke? come on....

Best Answer
2 More Responses