(09-25-2014 12:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  Posting topics like this one is childish behavior. You don't have to reach 35 to realize that.

That is totally absurd.

Where did we come from is the eternal question of all mankind.

Men much older and much wiser will be still discussing this topic for centurys long after we are dead and gone.

(09-25-2014 01:15 PM)Niner National Wrote:  My question has never been "who created god" but "if god has existed forever and ever, why did he just suddenly decide to create the universe?"

Did he just get bored some day? Were there previous civilizations before us that ended and we're just another iteration of mankind?

Surely he wasn't just sitting there twiddling his thumbs for eons before deciding to create something.

If there is such a God, how can we even pretend to understand his reason or even pretend to have the wisdom to comprehend it?

Or even have the GALL to sit in judgement of HIM.

Can we create an entire universe simply by the power of our voice?

(09-24-2014 08:33 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 08:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Because there isn't an answer yet, the issue here is that you don't realize they don't require that answer to be able to dismiss your explanation. And quite frankly, who wants to bet that if we eventually find out the answer, it's not going to revolve around a bearded guy in the sky who is concerned over whether or not you touch yourself.

Ahh the eternal question of what to believe....

The invisible man in the sky or the entire cosmos from absolute nothingness for no reason at all.

Hmmmm...........

That sounds a whole lot more logical than invisible folks in the sky...

(09-25-2014 08:43 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 08:33 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 08:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Because there isn't an answer yet, the issue here is that you don't realize they don't require that answer to be able to dismiss your explanation. And quite frankly, who wants to bet that if we eventually find out the answer, it's not going to revolve around a bearded guy in the sky who is concerned over whether or not you touch yourself.

Ahh the eternal question of what to believe....

The invisible man in the sky or the entire cosmos from absolute nothingness for no reason at all.

Hmmmm...........

That sounds a whole lot more logical than invisible folks in the sky...

No surprise here

lol

The truth is they both sound pretty stupid and insane if we are looking for proof or using logical reasoning.

(09-24-2014 08:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  ...is the question, "Who Created God?"

Answer: God.


Here's the way I work through it in three steps.

First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

Second, I look at all the precise complexity of the universe. Did this happen at random, or was there a guiding hand, a Creator? Seems to me that the Creator makes far more sense.

Third, so which God? The various gods may in fact be different manifestations of the same God to different cultures. But there's one thing those other gods don't have--the Resurrection. It happened or it didn't. If it did, then this is pretty much a slam dunk. So the question is whether it did. And there are numerous arguments from a textual-critical standpoint that it did. There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred.

That gets me there. May not get you there, but it gets me there.

I don't see why we have to assume that the universe and man have the same creator.

And why aren't there lots of other beings on Earth that evolved speech, tool use, and societies? Surely evolution would create more than one species with such highly desirable survival traits.

(09-25-2014 09:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 08:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  ...is the question, "Who Created God?"

Answer: God.


Here's the way I work through it in three steps.

First, Pascal's Bet. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So I do.

I guess I have to admit that I don't understand this--

Why would it need to be a "bad outcome" if you honestly didn't believe in God, and then found out later that you were wrong-- IF you honestly had been living your life the best you knew how?

I mean, the implication to me is that God REQUIRES you to do everything right, otherwise, or else He is going to punish you for not doing something you honestly didn't know to do...

Because if you believed in the "wrong" God, thinking with good intention and motivation, that is was the "right" God, OR if you rejected someone's false representation of the right God (because the person mis-represented Him), it sounds like you're implying that God would need to do something negative to you, as a result...

And that just sounds too much like what Christianity was supposed to replace-- an Old Testament "system" that required everyone to be "perfect" in doing everything right, or else not being able to attain God's approval.

And yet even that Old Testament God said clearly, and Jesus repeated during His time on earth, that God prefers mercy and not sacrifice--meaning that God doesn't expect us to do everything right. All He wants from us is to allow Him to heal us, and show us the mercy He wants to provide. He just wants us to love Him and each other, and be willing to let Him transform us into what makes us better/healed. And if we don't "get it right" about Him in every other way, then does it really matter, if in the end we do recognize Him for the loving God He is, and run toward Him (desiring His love for us) versus running away from Him (desiring to stay stuck in our sins)?

(09-25-2014 09:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Second, I look at all the precise complexity of the universe. Did this happen at random, or was there a guiding hand, a Creator? Seems to me that the Creator makes far more sense.

Third, so which God? The various gods may in fact be different manifestations of the same God to different cultures. But there's one thing those other gods don't have--the Resurrection. It happened or it didn't. If it did, then this is pretty much a slam dunk. So the question is whether it did. And there are numerous arguments from a textual-critical standpoint that it did. There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred.

That gets me there. May not get you there, but it gets me there.

But WHAT was the PURPOSE of the death PRIOR to the resurrection? The biggest issue many non-Christians have with this, is that they've been told by so many Christians that God HAD to beat up his only son and pour out His wrath on Him, because God loved us all so much--because God is stuck in some quandry He has "bound" Himself to, with having to be a "just" God and also a merciful God--meaning that justice "demands" punishment. And who better to pour out all his Wrath on than the person He loves most of all-- His own son? Because He loves us JUST as much???

And that's just difficult to reconcile. A God who has so much love that he MUST beat up His son, because He can't escape the "justice" side of Himself that REQUIRES him to beat up His son.... It's why many thoughtful people end up rejecting such a concept of God (I think). They're attracted to the idea of a loving God. But they don't buy into Him being a loving God, IF he has to condemn us all to Hell if we don't get it right about how loving He is...

My own belief is that a Christian ONLY needs to be willing to obey Christ out of Love for Christ and his fellow man, and in no way because if he doesn't, something bad might happen to him.

I think the Gospel says that Christ died so that death (and the sin that causes death) could be conquered. Otherwise we were going to be stuck in a state of sin/death, that kept us separated from God. So His death, was one where He chose to personally "take on" and destroy our sins for us, because we couldn't, because He truly did love us enough so we could be rid of them (not so that God could take His vengance on them, but so that He could heal us), and THEN because he conquered death, we ALL (each of us) get to live with Him in a state of life that He always intended---free from sin.

But we all have the choice to reject it, if we want. And evidently some will...

But it's not because they didn't believe in God. It's because they didn't want God's love for them.

And to me, that's the greatest mystery of all-- how someone could reject God, AFTER they understand how much love (not punishment or condemnation) He really has for them.

(09-25-2014 10:13 PM)G-Man Wrote:  I guess I have to admit that I don't understand this--
Why would it need to be a "bad outcome" if you honestly didn't believe in God, and then found out later that you were wrong-- IF you honestly had been living your life the best you knew how?
I mean, the implication to me is that God REQUIRES you to do everything right, otherwise, or else He is going to punish you for not doing something you honestly didn't know to do...
Because if you believed in the "wrong" God, thinking with good intention and motivation, that is was the "right" God, OR if you rejected someone's false representation of the right God (because the person mis-represented Him), it sounds like you're implying that God would need to do something negative to you, as a result...
And that just sounds too much like what Christianity was supposed to replace-- an Old Testament "system" that required everyone to be "perfect" in doing everything right, or else not being able to attain God's approval.
And yet even that Old Testament God said clearly, and Jesus repeated during His time on earth, that God prefers mercy and not sacrifice--meaning that God doesn't expect us to do everything right. All He wants from us is to allow Him to heal us, and show us the mercy He wants to provide. He just wants us to love Him and each other, and be willing to let Him transform us into what makes us better/healed. And if we don't "get it right" about Him in every other way, then does it really matter, if in the end we do recognize Him for the loving God He is, and run toward Him (desiring His love for us) versus running away from Him (desiring to stay stuck in our sins)?

You've lost me here. I think you're reading way more into this than I'm saying, but I'm not sure because I can't understand how you got there from what I wrote.

Quote:But WHAT was the PURPOSE of the death PRIOR to the resurrection? The biggest issue many non-Christians have with this, is that they've been told by so many Christians that God HAD to beat up his only son and pour out His wrath on Him, because God loved us all so much--because God is stuck in some quandry He has "bound" Himself to, with having to be a "just" God and also a merciful God--meaning that justice "demands" punishment.

Don't know, don't care, and don't believe it was for the purpose quoted there. My Christianity is based on the Resurrection, not the death.

(09-25-2014 10:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 10:13 PM)G-Man Wrote:  I guess I have to admit that I don't understand this--
Why would it need to be a "bad outcome" if you honestly didn't believe in God, and then found out later that you were wrong-- IF you honestly had been living your life the best you knew how?
I mean, the implication to me is that God REQUIRES you to do everything right, otherwise, or else He is going to punish you for not doing something you honestly didn't know to do...
Because if you believed in the "wrong" God, thinking with good intention and motivation, that is was the "right" God, OR if you rejected someone's false representation of the right God (because the person mis-represented Him), it sounds like you're implying that God would need to do something negative to you, as a result...
And that just sounds too much like what Christianity was supposed to replace-- an Old Testament "system" that required everyone to be "perfect" in doing everything right, or else not being able to attain God's approval.
And yet even that Old Testament God said clearly, and Jesus repeated during His time on earth, that God prefers mercy and not sacrifice--meaning that God doesn't expect us to do everything right. All He wants from us is to allow Him to heal us, and show us the mercy He wants to provide. He just wants us to love Him and each other, and be willing to let Him transform us into what makes us better/healed. And if we don't "get it right" about Him in every other way, then does it really matter, if in the end we do recognize Him for the loving God He is, and run toward Him (desiring His love for us) versus running away from Him (desiring to stay stuck in our sins)?

You've lost me here. I think you're reading way more into this than I'm saying, but I'm not sure because I can't understand how you got there from what I wrote.

You said that there's a bad outcome if you don't believe in God. I'm just questioning why you think there's some bad outcome?

Are you saying you think God won't let you change your mind if you see you were wrong about Him, because for some reason it's "too late"?

Because most Christians would say it was too late for someone to avoid eternal Hell, once they have died physically, without first recognizing Christ as their only hope for salvation PRIOR to their physical death-- having "waited too long" to have "given their life to Him" prior to dying.

And what I'm saying is that eternal Hell is someone's own choice for continuing to reject the true God--

Someone who lives his physical life for himself, and his own selfish desires, is a person who won't want to embrace God's love for him--either here on earth or later after death. He won't be able to choose to embrace God after death in the way God wanted him to. Not because God wouldn't still allow it, but because the soul the man created for himself through the way he lived his life on earth, won't let him want to embrace God after death.

(09-25-2014 10:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:But WHAT was the PURPOSE of the death PRIOR to the resurrection? The biggest issue many non-Christians have with this, is that they've been told by so many Christians that God HAD to beat up his only son and pour out His wrath on Him, because God loved us all so much--because God is stuck in some quandry He has "bound" Himself to, with having to be a "just" God and also a merciful God--meaning that justice "demands" punishment.

Don't know, don't care, and don't believe it was for the purpose quoted there. My Christianity is based on the Resurrection, not the death.

Don't mean to be adversarial with you, but you should care-- not because it would make you or anyone else more or less "saved" having believed something more accurately-- but instead, simply because, otherwise, the resurrection has no meaning at all. Death had to be conquered BY death (Christ's), or else there couldn't be a resurrection for Him or us (and all mankind). We will all be resurrected only because He died to conquer the power of death, and then once it was conquered, it no longer has any hold on any of us--unless we wish to continue to cling to the sin that empowers it.

Owl 69/70/75 [b Wrote:pid='11167533' dateline='1411699422']

(09-24-2014 08:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  ...is the question, "Who Created God?"

Answer: God.


Here's the way I work through it in three steps.

First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

Second, I look at all the precise complexity of the universe. Did this happen at random, or was there a guiding hand, a Creator? Seems to me that the Creator makes far more sense.

Third, so which God? The various gods may in fact be different manifestations of the same God to different cultures. But there's one thing those other gods don't have--the Resurrection. It happened or it didn't. If it did, then this is pretty much a slam dunk. So the question is whether it did. And there are numerous arguments from a textual-critical standpoint that it did. There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred.

That gets me there. May not get you there, but it gets me there.

There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

There is very little evidence that anyone existed more than fifteen hundred years ago...

However, you actually believing what exists today as Millions of Christians, is the result of some great conspiracy theory? Actually, that's pretty comical. Do you also think the World Trade Center was an inside job? There's more evidence for that than that Jesus existed, right?

(09-25-2014 11:36 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

There is very little evidence that anyone existed more than fifteen hundred years ago...

However, you actually believing what exists today as Millions of Christians, is the result of some great conspiracy theory? Actually, that's pretty comical. Do you also think the World Trade Center was an inside job? There's more evidence for that than that Jesus existed, right?

Millions of people believe Muhammad is the most recent prophet as well. Should I believe them as well?

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

An imaginary man made up by a group of about 12 impoverished, oppressed jews 2000 years ago is now the most famous human to ever exist?

I call BS

(09-25-2014 11:46 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Millions of people believe Muhammad is the most recent prophet as well. Should I believe them as well?

That's not what you posted,

You would have to argue first that Mohammad never existed or that there is "little proof of" him.

Now you just leaped to proving he was a prophet of God. Which is of course stupid because no one can tangibly prove anything in the sense that we understand and use the term.

Belief in such things is based on faith, not "proof". Which is the whole point.

(09-25-2014 11:48 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

An imaginary man made up by a group of about 12 impoverished, oppressed jews 2000 years ago is now the most famous human to ever exist?

I call BS

Yeah Constatine had that much of an influence in western civilization.

(09-25-2014 11:55 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah Constatine had that much of an influence in western civilization.

lol Whatever conspiracy theory floats your boat.

Few people are foolish enough to seriously argue Jesus never even existed. Its pretty much universally accepted by every historian. Just like Mohammad was a real guy that existed. Just like Buddah, Socrates, Aristotle, ect.


Always comical to see someone trying though.

(09-25-2014 11:50 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:46 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Millions of people believe Muhammad is the most recent prophet as well. Should I believe them as well?

That's not what you posted,

You would have to argue first that Mohammad never existed or that there is "little proof of" him.

Now you just leaped to proving he was a prophet of God. Which is of course stupid because no one can tangibly prove anything in the sense that we understand and use the term.

Belief in such things is based on faith, not "proof". Which is the whole point.

Are you kidding me? I don't have to prove Muhammed existed nor do I think he was a prophet if he did.
There is limited evidence Jesus existed.

(09-26-2014 12:03 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:55 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah Constatine had that much of an influence in western civilization.

lol Whatever conspiracy theory floats your boat.

Few people are foolish enough to seriously argue Jesus never even existed. Its pretty much universally accepted by every historian. Just like Mohammad was a real guy that existed. Just like Buddah, Socrates, Aristotle, ect.

Always comical to see someone trying though.

Don't forget Zeus.

(09-26-2014 12:07 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Are you kidding me? I don't have to prove Muhammed existed nor do I think he was a prophet if he did.
There is limited evidence Jesus existed.

Using your strange logic, we now have to totally throw out almost all modern day accepted historical people from antiquity.
'
Aristotle, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammad, ect.

If you want to be one of the few people on the planet still screaming these people never even existed, then be my guest.

(09-26-2014 12:08 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Don't forget Zeus.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Do you even know who Zeus was? He was not a human being you idiot.

Historians do NOT accept him as having been a real person. He is a mythological figure.

Step away from the keyboard my friend.