So You Have Proven God Does Not Exist, Now What?

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by honested3

 

TBH I think it says far more about you If the only thing stopping you do nasty things is your belief in God, Morality is in us all, It is not taught it is part of who we are without it we would have died off years ago.

Boy Monkey HBT, says I think more far about the annoying aspect things nasty everyone needs for you to buy us all night vision goggles to read your clever black on the fade opaque whatchamcallit; if you really wanted anyone to know who you are you could disapear completely black on black all typeface.

edit on 29-3-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

what?

reply to post by honested3


I will second that ....what?

Originally posted by charles1952
Assume, just for a moment that there is a God with all of the attributes anyone ascribes to Him. Absolute goodness, love, mercy, etc. The Being that created us and everything else that exists. Infinite in every respect. Could you meet such a being and not fall down and worship?

It might surprise you to learn that you it's not in everyone's nature to grovel and worship before anything, at all. And that in many peoples opinion, any being that would encourage such debased behaviour would by causation be unworthy of even veneration.

It's certainly possible, and sometimes even pleasant, to lie to ourselves, but that's not the life for me.

Irony overload, suspect possible Poe.....

Originally posted by Prezbo369
It might surprise you to learn that you it's not in everyone's nature to grovel and worship before anything, at all. And that in many peoples opinion, any being that would encourage such debased behaviour would by causation be unworthy of even veneration.

The Lord doesn't want you to blindly worship Him, you have it backwards. He wants you to have a relationship with Him and once you know who He is and discover who He is, you will want to worship Him.

Originally posted by honested3

Originally posted by Prezbo369
It might surprise you to learn that you it's not in everyone's nature to grovel and worship before anything, at all. And that in many peoples opinion, any being that would encourage such debased behaviour would by causation be unworthy of even veneration.

The Lord doesn't want you to blindly worship Him, you have it backwards. He wants you to have a relationship with Him and once you know who He is and discover who He is, you will want to worship Him.

Tell that to the poster I was replying to, t'was he that said that God/s should be worshiped purely due to their awesomeness.

reply to post by Prezbo369


He was saying what I was saying to you, that if you knew God you would be overwhelmed by Him and only able to worship. Take for instance if your eyes allowed you to see a new color for the first time, wouldn't you go wow? Imagine all the more if it was the Creator.

Originally posted by honested3
reply to [url= by Prezbo369[/url]

 

He was saying what I was saying to you, that if you knew God you would be overwhelmed by Him and only able to worship. Take for instance if your eyes allowed you to see a new color for the first time, wouldn't you go wow? Imagine all the more if it was the Creator.

Originally posted by charles1952

Assume, just for a moment that there is a God with all of the attributes anyone ascribes to Him. Absolute goodness, love, mercy, etc. The Being that created us and everything else that exists. Infinite in every respect. Could you meet such a being and not fall down and worship?

He speaks of attributes and acts it is claimed the god in question has committed, but nothing about personally knowing such a God.

And how much of a relationship could you possibly have with someone/thing that overwhelms you to the point where only worship is possible?

Outside of sexual fetishes I'm not sure such a relationship could or would be healthy.

And the colour/creator analogy?..........it makes no sense, could you clarify?

I see I've caused some confusion, my apologies. I'm going to try something a little different. I'll try to explain myself without trying to persuade anyone, win any argument, or look good. This is just what is in my heart. I may be wrong and I would appreciate correction.

On Earth, we see through a glass darkly. I can have some notion of God through what He has shown us throughout history, what He has told to other people, and what He has made known to me. None of these are complete or perfect expressions of who God is. It's important for us to try to become as knowledgeable as possible, but we must be prepared to end our lives with less than perfect knowledge.

I believe that after my body dies, I will see God as He is. This "Beatific Vision" will be stunning. "Stunning" is a feeble word. Remember the first time you saw something incredible? This result will be infinitely greater. My hope is that He will lift me up and accept me. From that time on I will see Him more clearly, understand more, love more and praise more than I ever have. I won't spend Eternity on my face, but may spend it dancing and singing, returning to God the Love He has given to me.

I will at last know Truth and Reality.

Happy Easter





Originally posted by charles1952

Assume, just for a moment that there is a God with all of the attributes anyone ascribes to Him. Absolute goodness, love, mercy, etc. The Being that created us and everything else that exists. Infinite in every respect. Could you meet such a being and not fall down and worship?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Intelligent design? Okay, it's possible. A perfect god? Zero possibility.

Very good description! That's about right.

But do you claim to be smarter than these men Pops (P.S. to the readership he's already given me permission to call him Pops)

The God Theory,
by Bernard Haisch



Now, NAM, you know that for every brilliant mind you present here, I can present just as brilliant minds to the contrary.

As for being smarter, no one needs to be a genius to know when something is wrong. If an idea is based on a fallacy, no matter how compelling the reasoning that comes after it, the fallacy is still a fallacy.

For instance, when Steven Hawking (I hope we at least agree that he's considered a brilliant physicist) came out with his mathematically proven theory that information is lost when it enters black holes, I KNEW he was completely wrong. Now, my reasoning may have been way off, but I didn't need my theory to be right in order to feel that his was wrong. My theory was that if information was being sucked out of the universe via black holes, then those billions of black holes would be like billions of pin holes in a balloon. This would make the universe DEflate, not inflate. Galaxies would be smashing together, not flying apart.

Again, my theory could be wrong, but I still knew that Hawking was wrong too.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Agree. However, there is no evidence whatsoever of an ALL-knowing, ALL-powerful, inVISible being who is EVERYWHERE, who created the WHOLE universe, who lives in another dimension called heaven, who is PERFECT in every way, and who was never born and will never die.

Very good description! That's about right.

This is where it boggles my mind when even the most fanatical of believers read this and then they don't slap their foreheads while saying, "OH MY GOD, when it's put that way it sounds utterly absurd! How could I have believed in such nonsense?"

The whole premise is way WAY beyond ludicrous, and you people treat it as though it's pure logic. I don't get it at all.

Originally posted by honested3

Originally posted by jiggerj
Intelligent design? Okay, it's possible. A perfect god? Zero possibility.

Agreed, it is intelligent design and no its not perfect, but it once was though!

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned." Romans 5:12

The original sin of Adam and Eve caused a perfect intelligently designed world, to become just as you said, a non perfect intelligently designed world.

edit on 3/29/13 by honested3 because: grammar

I can't follow your logic, but I'd like to shine a light on that passage, if you don't mind? This is another example of where man is blamed for something he simply isn't capable of. Just recently we talked about the irrational belief that Jesus was murdered by people, with my argument of how a god cannot be killed by mere mortals.

Now we have Adam and Eve somehow having the power to change life itself, and causing death through sin. They could not do this! It's impossible. GOD did it. Going on the premise that this is a true story (which it SO isn't) then HE is the one that put the temptation in the Garden of Eden. This ALL-knowing entity knew that Adam and Eve would be naive enough to listen to the serpent. GOD is the one who caused death to become a reality. And, just like the flood story, GOD is the one who decided to punish all the animals with death as well.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Agree. However, there is no evidence whatsoever of an ALL-knowing, ALL-powerful, inVISible being who is EVERYWHERE, who created the WHOLE universe, who lives in another dimension called heaven, who is PERFECT in every way, and who was never born and will never die.

Very good description! That's about right.

This is where it boggles my mind when even the most fanatical of believers read this and then they don't slap their foreheads while saying, "OH MY GOD, when it's put that way it sounds utterly absurd! How could I have believed in such nonsense?"

The whole premise is way WAY beyond ludicrous, and you people treat it as though it's pure logic. I don't get it at all.

Did you read the descriptions of the two physicists I offered which describe the same thing in scientific terms. You said it was impossible and the reply was intended to show you precisely how and why it is not only possible, but most likely.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Did you read the descriptions of the two physicists I offered which describe the same thing in scientific terms. You said it was impossible and the reply was intended to show you precisely how and why it is not only possible, but most likely.

I read a couple of them, but it's hard to absorb when I'm so tired all the time.
I'll try again.

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...

I'm not afraid to admit when something is over my head. I have no idea what this guy is talking about. My best guess, which is not good at all, is that this guy is saying that if someone takes a camera, aims it at a target, the light passing through the lens is structured in the way the photographer wants it when he clicks on the button. But, what if the photographer is a novice and the picture comes out blurry? Can we say that this is perfect intelligent design?

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Go on then....but I think you will find far more credible evidence to show evolution is true.

Why why do you do this. The shark; of any genotype should be the dominant fish/animal on earth. It is 350 million years old and has not done a thing with improving itself (get out of the salt water for one and loose the gills) so as to avoid the fishhooks or nets of a greater creature preditor than itself (the human). You would think common sense would drive the evolution of one of the oldest specie groups on earth--no foresight? Why has it not evolved or at least dreamed of rule; the Planet, shouldnt it have evolved enough to have grown legs at some point? The Pig "specie Andrewsarkus" was land based and is thought to have became an aquatic mammal; whale specie derivitives and not 350 million years of age (this the problem). Human evolution as natural causal (environmental) has not been proven and is the promotional idea of the unsound minds of liars.

Originally posted by charles1952
I see I've caused some confusion, my apologies. I'm going to try something a little different. I'll try to explain myself without trying to persuade anyone, win any argument, or look good. This is just what is in my heart. I may be wrong and I would appreciate correction.

No confusion caused, you presented a scenario and posited a question and as such you received a reply...

And as to what you hope, wish and believe to be true in regards to an afterlife......I can say with a fair amount of certainty that you won't be disappointed.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Why why do you do this. The shark; of any genotype should be the dominant fish/animal on earth. It is 350 million years old and has not done a thing with improving itself (get out of the salt water for one and loose the gills) so as to avoid the fishhooks or nets of a greater creature preditor than itself (the human). You would think common sense would drive the evolution of one of the oldest specie groups on earth--no foresight? Why has it not evolved or at least dreamed of rule; the Planet, shouldnt it have evolved enough to have grown legs at some point? The Pig "specie Andrewsarkus" was land based and is thought to have became an aquatic mammal; whale specie derivitives and not 350 million years of age (this the problem). Human evolution as natural causal (environmental) has not been proven and is the promotional idea of the unsound minds of liars.

I think that's what's called 'par for the course'.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Not even making 'par' for the course, a quadruple bogey; bringing all sorts of carnivial antics into the play against the 'common sense team' of anthropologists (lead weighted golf balls, greens flags fixed statically to show windage exactly opposite, slightly bent clubs and spring loaded holes).